Territorial jurisdiction in money recovery suits depends on where part of the cause of action, including payment, actually arose.

Territorial jurisdiction existed at Ratangarh because part of the cause of action arose there in a suit for recovery of money from commercial dealings. The plaintiff was required to prove that payment on the hundis was made at Ratangarh, and that payment formed part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim. Payment to the bank at Ratangarh could not be treated as payment at Kota merely because the bank acted under the defendant's instructions. Once the transactions ended, the claim created a debtor-creditor relationship, and in the absence of an agreed place of payment, the debtor had to seek the creditor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Civil Judge, Ratangarh had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit on the basis that part of the cause of action arose at Ratangarh.

Analysis: The suit was for recovery of money arising out of commercial dealings between the parties. The plaintiff had to prove payment made on the hundis at Ratangarh, and that payment formed part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. The fact that the bank acted under the defendant's instructions meant that payment to the bank at Ratangarh could not be treated as payment at Kota. The Court also held that, after the transactions ended, the amount due created a debtor-creditor relationship, and in the absence of an agreement as to place of payment, the debtor must seek the creditor.

Conclusion: The court at Ratangarh had jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the revision was liable to be allowed.

---