- (1.) The defendant no.2 seeks deletion of its name from the array of parties in the suit by the present application.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant no.2 submits that, no part of cause of action as against the defendant no.2 arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He submits that, the plaint does not contain any pleading establishing any part of the cause of action as against the defendant No. 2 to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. In support of the contention that, when no part of the cause of action against the defendant arises within the jurisdiction of a Court in seisin of proceeding, such defendant cannot be a party in such suit, he relies upon (1999) 1 Cal LJ 68 page 401 ( Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Messrs Stanimpex & Ors .) and ILR VOL. XLIX (Calcutta) 895 ( Bengal And North Western Railway Co. Ltd. vs. Sadaram Bhairodan ). According to him, the pleadings in the written statement cannot be looked into for the purpose of considering whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. In support of the contention that, pleadings in the written statement cannot be considered in an application of this nature, he relies upon (2012) Vol. 8 Supreme Court Cases 701 ( Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh And Others ) and (1997) Vol.2 Cal. LT 321 ( UCO Bank vs.Sm. Ratni Devi Jain & Ors .).
(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant no.2 submits that, the reliefs claimed in the plaint of the suit are primarily directed against the defendant no.1. Apparently, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 entered into a contract by which, the defendant no.1 was obliged to supply goods to the plaintiff. According to the plaint case, the plaintiff suffered damages for which the plaintiff is seeking to recovery of damages from the defendant no.1. The only relief against the defendant no.2 in the plaint is prayer (d) of the plaint by which, the plaintiff seeks a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from demanding any money from the plaintiff in support of the transactions of the defendant no.1 with the plaintiff. He submits that, such a relief is contrary to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. He relies upon All India Reporter 1999 Cal 200 : (1999) 2 AP LJ (DNC 1) 12 ( Indian Bank vs. Euro International Pte . Ltd.) in support of the contention that such relief cannot be granted.;