S.S. Dhavan, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Jhansi directing the return of the plaint on the ground that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and the suit was not cognizable by the Civil court at Jhansi. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,450/- as damages for breach of contract and for refund of Rs. 3000/- paid as earnest money for the purhcase of 1500 maunds of mahua through the defendants, who are commission agents.
The admitted facts are that the contract was made at Khariar Road (Orissa) and Rs. 1000/- was deposited with the defendants. The balance of Rs. 3,000/- was to be paid through the bank against the Railway Receipt, but the defendant drew a Hundi of Rs. 2000/- on the plaintiff, which was accepted by the latter at Lalitpur. It is also admitted that, in pursuance of this acceptance, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was remitted to the defendants. Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties and the plaintiff accused the defendants of having committed breach of contract. He filed a suit in Jhansi claiming that his acceptance of the Hundi at Lalitpur created a cause of action within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the civil court at Jhansi.
The learned Additional Civil Judge framed 8 issues in the suit, 7 being on merits and one on the question of jurisdiction. He decided all the issues on merits against the plaintiff, but also held that the court had no jurisdiction. In view of this finding he could not pass any decree of dismissal of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for the presentation in the proper court. Against this order the plaintiff has come to this Court in appeal.
2. Mr. S. N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Judge should have decided the suit on merits. He argued that the acceptance of the Hundi at Lalitpur created a cause of action in that place and invested the civil court in Jhansi with jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. I am inclined to agree with this contention. The learned Judge observed: 'The fact that the Hundi was accepted at Lalitpur does not prove that Rs. 2000/- were agreed to be paid there and the cause of action for the suit cannot be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.' This observation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the transaction known as the acceptance of a Hundi. By accepting a bill of exchange the acceptor agrees unconditionally to pay the amount of the bill to or to the order of, the drawer. His acceptance makes him the debtor for the amount.
The learned Judge, therefore, was in error in observing that the acceptance at Lalitpur did not prove that Rs. 2000/- were agreed to be paid there. He overlooked the principle that acceptance itself amounted to a promise, enforceable under the law, by the acceptor to pay the amount to the drawer of the Hundi. The sum of Rs. 2000/- was remitted in fulfilment of this promise. The cause of action therefore, arose partly at Lalitpur. The Jhansi court had jurisdiction to decide the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 6,450/- which included the amount of Rs. 2000/- paid under the Hundi accepted at Lalitpur.
4. For these reasons I allow the appeal andset aside the order of the trial court directing thereturn of the plaint. The cause shall be remanded tothe learned Judge with a direction to decide thesuit on merits.