- (1.) Leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent applied by the plaintiff has been refused in this suit under the order dated 1st September, 2014. The plaintiff however is unduly keen to sue in this Court alone. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff drew the Court's attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR(SC) 1239 stating that this judgment was shown to the Division Bench of this Court in another matter of the same plaintiff where leave under Clause 12 granted came to be revoked by this Court and the Division Bench of this Court set aside that order. The order of the Division Bench does not show the Supreme Court's judgment being considered. However it is argued that it was shown to the Division Bench, but has not been mentioned in its order.
(2.) Be that as it may, since it is a question of law to be adjudicated, the Supreme Court judgment has been considered to see whether under this judgment leave can be granted to the plaintiff to sue in this Court.
(3.) It may be mentioned that if a given Court is the only Court having territorial jurisdiction the suit has to be filed in that Court alone. A Court where the cause of action has arisen either wholly or where the defendant resides and carries on business would have territorial jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises in such Court only partly the Court must grant leave. Consequently cause of action must arise at least in part for the Court to grant leave to sue in its jurisdiction.;