Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is a partnership firm of which the other appellants are its partners. By the impugned order, the Division Bench has allowed the respondents application for revocation of leave which had been granted under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 to the appellants to file a suit against the respondent in the Calcutta High Court. Leave was revoked on the ground that no part of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint had arisen within the original jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint was consequently directed to be taken off the file and returned to the appellants for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(3.) The suit had been filed in 1995 by the appellants against the respondent alleging that the appellant had supplied goods pursuant to an agreement between the appellant No. 1 and a German company, named Kleinsorge (hereinafter referred to as the company). Payment for the goods supplied was to be made by way of letter of credit. The letter of credit was accordingly issued by the respondent at the instance of the company in favour of the appellant No. 1 for an amount of DM 41,06,080. The goods were supplied by the appellants to the company. The plaint goes on to state (wherein the appellants are referred to as "the plaintiffs" and the respondent as "the defendant"). "8. The said letter of credit was sent by the defendant to the UCO Bank, 4 and 4/1, Red Cross Place, Calcutta-700 001 within the aforesaid jurisdiction and the defendant advised the UCO Bank requesting the UCO Bank to advise the said credit to the plaintiff No. 1 without adding its confirmation. In other words, the UCO Bank was acting as the Advising Bank only. 11. On 15th September, 1992 and 30th October, 1992, the plaintiffs presented the documents stipulated in the aforesaid letter of credit at the UCO Bank, 4 and 4/1, Red Cross Place, Calcutta-700 001 within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 12. The plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs presented the entire set of documents relating to the shipped goods as required by the aforesaid letter of credit and the said documents were forwarded by the Advising Bank to the issuing Bank being the defendant. The defendant received the said documents in Germany, outside the aforesaid jurisdiction. The plaintiffs reasonably expected to receive the payment under the said letter of credit within a short period of time. There was no discrepancy in the said documents and till date, no complaint has been received from either the defendant or the Advising Bank or the purchaser in that regard. Payment under the said letter of credit was to be made at the office of the UCO Bank at 4 and 4/1, Red Cross Place, Calcutta-700 001, within the aforesaid jurisdiction." ;