SANJIB BANERJE,J. - (1.) Several points have been canvassed by the defendants in support of their application for effectively arresting the action in this Court.
(2.) The first point that the defendants take is that no part of the plaintiffs cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked. The alternative case for revocation of the leave under Clause 12 is that even if an infinitesimal part of the cause of action arose within, the leave is liable to be revoked since it would be inconvenient to the defendants to contest the suit here. The second count of attack is that the suit has been instituted in abuse of process and as a counter-blast to the defendants action instituted in Delhi. The defendants refer to the plaint relating to the present suit and the admission therein that it was only upon service of an order passed by the Delhi High Court early in 2009 that the plaintiffs came to be aware of their rights and the alleged misrepresentation of facts by the defendants.
(3.) The next ground urged is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is defendants contention that when a case of misrepresentation is made out in relation to the making of a contract, a suit for annulling the contract could not have been instituted without the plaintiffs having avoided and rescinded the contract. The defendants refer to the averments between paragraphs 10 and 18 of the plaint to demonstrate that there is no clear statement that the plaintiffs have avoided the contract and there is no averment to the effect that any notice of rescission or revocation has been served on the defendants.;