THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3435 and 3471 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in CRP.No.3435 of 2003 filed O.S.No.44 of 2000 against the respondent in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Salur, for refund of the amount covered by an agreement of sale. The petitioners in CRP.No.3471 of 2003 filed O.S.No.45 of 2000 in the same Court against the respondents for identical relief. The respondents filed written statements and raised several objections including the one of territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court framed identical issues in both the suits. The respondents filed I.A.Nos.127 and 126 of 2002 under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC with a prayer to decide the question of limitation, and territorial jurisdiction covered by issues 2 and 4 as preliminary issues. Accordingly, the trial Court took up those issues, without recording evidence. The question as to limitation was not touched. It was, however, held vide separate orders, dated 30.06.2003, that the trial Court does not have territorial jurisdiction, since the agreements of sale were executed at a place in the State of Orissa. Accordingly, it returned the plaints. The said orders are under challenge in these revisions. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the agreements of sale were executed in the State of Orissa, the subject matter thereof is a property within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. He contends that revocation of the agreements has taken place at Salur, and in that view of the matter, the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction. The notices sent to the respondents to the same address as furnished in the suits were returned un-served. This Court takes the same as served, for limited purpose of these CRPs. The trial Court framed identical issues, on the basis of the pleadings before it, in both the suits. The respondents insisted that issue Nos.2 and 4 be decided as preliminary issues. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for disposal of the suits by answering preliminary issues, provided there is no necessity of adducing evidence by the parties. The trial Court expressed the view that the second issue needs recording of evidence, and as such, it cannot be taken up. The discussion was restricted only to issue No.4. It is a matter of record that the agreements, which constitute the basis of the suits, were executed in the State of Orissa and the respondents are also from that place. The fact, however, remains that the subject matter of the agreements, is a property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. A clear observation was made by the trial Court to the effect that if the suit were to have been filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale, the Court does have territorial jurisdiction. The contradictory view was taken only on the ground that the petitioners sought for refund of the amount. In this regard, it needs to be observed that if a civil Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for one purpose in relation to an agreement, it should not make any difference as to the nature of relief that is claimed vis-à-vis that agreement. The principles that govern territorial jurisdiction do not maintain any distinction as to the nature of relief, as long as the basis is the same. Another way of looking at the matter is that refund of the amount can also be treated as one of the modes of specific performance of agreement. Examined in that context, the opinion expressed by the trial Court cannot be treated as correct. Section 4 of the Contract Act has also bearing upon the controversy. It provides for the circumstances, under which, the contract can be said to have been complete. It reads as under: 4. Communication when complete.- The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The communication of revocation is complete,- as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person, who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge. From a perusal of the same, it becomes clear that even a communication of revocation of agreement is covered by this provision. The communication will be complete as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person, to whom it is made. In the instant case, the petitioners revoked the agreements of sale. Therefore, revocation happens to be an independent cause of action and that has taken place, when the petitioners issued notices from their place. Thereby, an independent cause of action has accrued. For the foregoing reasons, the revisions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. It shall be open to the petitioners herein to re-present the plaints. The trial Court shall receive the same and take further steps from the stage of trial, after issuing notice to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th AUGUST, 2009. Note: L.R.Copy be marked. kvni