Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This is a suit for : (a) a decree for a declaration that the lien purported to be created and orally claimed by the defendant-bank on the fixed deposits mentioned in the schedule being annexure A hereto is void, inoperative, non est and is not binding on the holders of the fixed deposits and the defendant-bank is obliged to repay the said fixed deposits with interest thereon to the plaintiff ; (b) a decree for Rs. 79,49,080 as pleaded in paragraph 20 hereto ; (c) interim interest and interest on judgment at 21 per cent, per annum ; (d) a decree for damages for defamation amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs) ; (e) injunction ; (f) attachment ; (g) receiver ; (h) costs ; (i) further and other reliefs.
(2.) Defendant No. 2 is the proforma defendant and the actual contesting defendant is defendant No. 1-bank. Such bank, as described by the plaintiff, has its regional office at 107/1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016, within the jurisdiction of this court. No leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been sought for by the plaintiff for having part of the cause of action in the said office. Therefore, it can be presumed, at this stage, that the plaintiff proceeded as if the said office has nexus and connection with the cause of action.
(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by. taking various defences. Broadly, the plaintiff has no claim against the defendant as this court has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try or determine the suit since no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction. The Khidirpore Branch office of the defendant has or had a dealing and transaction with the plaintiff and against that branch the plaintiff has made the claims. Such written statement has been verified by one Shri Bijoy Kumar Gupta, Assistant General Manager of the bank. It also appears that the verification was signed in the office at 107/1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016. Affidavit of documents was also affirmed by the deponent from such office. Issues were suggested and ultimately the following issues were framed : (1) Whether this court has any jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the suit ? (2) Was defendant No. 1 liable to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 50,00,000 being the amounts in aggregate held under ten several fixed deposit receipts as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint, upon their respective maturity ? (3) Was defendant No. 1 entitled to withhold payment under ten fixed deposit receipts on their respective maturity as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint ? (4) Had defendant No. 1 any right to claim set off and adjust the proceeds of matured fixed deposits against the alleged debit balance in the account of the plaintiff and/or Balaji Enterprise ? (5) Had defendant No. 1 any right or was entitled to exercise general lien against matured fixed deposits for recovery of his alleged claim against the plaintiff ? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for Rs. 79,49,080 inclusive of interest as claimed in paragraph 21 of the plaint ? (7) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for damages for Rs, 10 lakhs as pleaded in paragraph 24 of plaint ? (8) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?;