Territorial jurisdiction turns on where the cause of action arose; intended destination alone did not confer Patna court jurisdiction.

Territorial jurisdiction depended on where the cause of action arose, not on the place where the goods were intended to be ultimately despatched. The suit concerned alleged loss and pilferage of railway goods while lying in a godown at Kudra, and the actionable events occurred there. For jurisdiction, the relevant inquiry was whether any part of the cause of action arose within the Patna court's limits; the mere intention to send the goods to Patna Ghat was insufficient. The Patna court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court at Patna had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis that part of the cause of action arose within its limits.

Analysis: The suit was founded on loss and pilferage of goods while they were lying in the railway godown at Kudra. The relevant question at the stage of jurisdiction was not the ultimate liability under Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act, but whether any part of the cause of action for the alleged loss arose within the territorial limits of the Patna court. Mere intention that the goods were later to be despatched to Patna Ghat did not create jurisdiction, because the actionable events complained of occurred at Kudra in the district of Shahabad.

Conclusion: The Patna court had no territorial jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action arose within its limits. The application was dismissed.

---