Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was obtained on the averments made in paragraph 7 of the plaint. This paragraph refers to two documents, viz., the document dated 10th March, 1979 and another document dated 5th July, 1979 being Annexure D/1. These two documents have been annexed to this application. Paragraph 30 of the plaint shows that it is a suit for a total sum of Rs. 43,61,421. It comprises of four accounts, viz. (1) Stock cash credit account No. 1, (2) Export packing credit account No. 3 and clean cash credit account No. 4, (3) Instalment credit account and (4) Loan account. The last item being the loan account is for Rs. 36,146,94. For the two items there are two documents which are material. For the last item there is no document.
(2.) On behalf of the defendant No. 1 revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was asked for on two grounds, viz. no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and secondly that the balance of convenience was overwhelmingly in favour of the trial of the suit at Howrah where the transactions took place. In support of this contention, learned Advocate for the defendant, No. 1, who asked for revocation of leave contended that the plaintiff had relied on a very large number of documents and only those two documents only, referred to hereinbefore, were alleged to have been executed at Calcutta. It was stated that the transaction between the parties took place at Howrah, the accounts were opened and maintained at Howrah. Therefore, it would be very proper, it was submitted, for the suit to be tried at Howrah. It has to be borne in mind that the plaintiff is a Bank which has branches at Howrah. It has a main office at Calcutta. Secondly, there are six defendants. Of those the defendant No. 1 is the main debtor and the others are guarantors. So far as the defendant No. 2 is concerned though he resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court, he is not a resident of Howrah but resides at Suhrawardy Avenue. Park Circus, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Other defendants admittedly reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. The balance of convenience is always a question of fact. The proximity of Howrah and Calcutta is notorious of which judicial notice can be taken and in a suit of this magnitude it would not be so preponderantly inconvenient if the suit is tried in this Court.
(3.) As to the revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, after all it has to be reiterated and 1 had observed more than once that the cardinal principle of balance of convenience, is, that the defendant should not be harassed by the exercise of choice of forum by the plaintiff. In this case having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot, in my opinion, be said that the trial of a suit of this nature at Calcutta instead of its trial at the Howrah Court, where most of the defendants are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Howrah Court, would be so harassing and the balance of convenience would be so preponderantly in favour of the defendant No. 1 as to revoke leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on that ground.;