Heard counsel for the petitioner who has argued before us beyond the pleadings before the District Forum.  The only allegation made in respect of the jurisdiction for filing the complaint before the District Forum is found in para 13 of the complaint wherein it is stated that opposite party No.3 is that the Branch Office of the opposite parties is based at Chandigarh on account of which the said Forum has territorial jurisdiction.  The Apex Court in Sony Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (1) RCR (Civil)  has interpreted the expression “Branch Office’ which means the branch office where cause of action has arisen. However, no cause of action is shown to have arisen at Branch Office in Chandigarh and as such the fora below have very rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The State Commission has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Forum having territorial jurisdiction and also made observation relating to the limitation for filing the compliant.  In view of this, we do we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revisions are accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.