P.C. Banerji, J.
1. The only question in this case is whether the Court of Small Causes at Agra had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That Court has held that it had no jurisdiction and has returned the plaint for presentation to the Court at Budaun. The plaintiff's firm is at Agra. A contract was made at Budaun with the defendant's firm, for sale to that firm of certain goods which were to be delivered at Budaun. The goods were despatched from Agra and delivery was taken at Budaun. As the price was not paid, the plaintiff's firm brought the present suit at Agra for recovery of the price. The plaintiff's agent gave evidence and he said that it was agreed that the price would be, sent to Agra. One of the defendants was examined and he said that one of the proprietors of the plaintiff's firm had said that he would take the price when he came to Budaun. No evidence was given by either party in support of this statement. Ordinarily, if goods are purchased or money is borrowed, the payment for the goods or repayment of the money must be presumed to have been agreed to be made at the place of residence of the seller or the lender, as the case may be. In the absence of evidence to prove that it was specifically agreed that payment was to b made at Budaun the presumption would be that payment was to be made at Agra. Therefore, the Agra Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it not having been proved that payment was agreed to be made at Budaun. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Agra was, therefore, not justified in returning the plaint. I allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and direct that the plaint be received back and the case tried on the merits. I make no order as to costs. I would advise the parties to come to terms instead of fighting the matter any further.