PATHERYA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed in C.S. 179 of 2013 and for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) THE case of the applicant/defendant No. 1 is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the cause of action, if any, arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. All the defendants reside in Mumbai, the office of the defendant No. 1 is also in Mumbai, the cheques and letters were also issued from Mumbai. It is only for purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court that LSI Financial Services (P) Ltd. of Lindsay Street has been introduced but no transaction or money was received by it. The money was deposited through RTGS from Bank to Bank and the claim is not based on the 1st deposit made but is based on the deposit renewed in November, 2012 in respect of which fresh documents were issued. "Renewal" has been described in Black's dictionary as replacement of an old contract with a new contract as opposed to mere extension of a contract. There is also no pleading of renewal. The cause of action is based on the second deposit which is a new agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant without the involvement of LSI Financial Services (P) Ltd. No part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta in respect of the second transaction and therefore this Court will have no jurisdiction. It has also not been stated where the new agreement was entered into or renewal took place as is the requirement as held in 1989 Supp I SCC 487. Payment through RTGS is immediate and in view of 2007 (1) KLJ 738 the dishonour of cheque will not give rise to a cause of action. Therefore the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked and the plaint be taken off the file of this Court. In opposing the said application counsel for the plaintiff submits that Section 20(c) of the 1908 Code permits filing of a suit in a place where a part of the cause of action has arisen, as in this case. Payment was made from within and the agreement between the parties performed. The money was also repayable under the contract at Calcutta and has been paid. As part of the cause of action has risen within, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as held in AIR (1989) SC 1239 and (2006) 6 SCC 207.
(3.) IN paragraph 11 of the plaint breach has been pleaded and if traversed will have to be proved. Breach of agreement by dishonour of cheque by bank will give rise to part of a cause of action as held in AIR (1963) Patna 398 and 76 Company Cases 155. Reliance is also placed on AIR (2007) SC 2656. From the conduct of the parties extension of the deposit is evident. Much has been made of the word "renewal". The said is nothing but a red herring and a misnomer as renewal is nothing but a continuation of the old transaction as held in AIR (1960) Calcutta 296. (2007) 1 KLJ is distinguishable in view of 2013 Co.LJ 264. (1989) 1 Supp SCC 487 is distinguishable on facts as the reported decision dealt with lease and was considered in (1997) 1 SCC 650. In view of the aforesaid no order be passed on this application. In reply counsel for the defendant No. 1 submits that AIR (1960) Calcutta 296 is distinguishable on facts as it was a case of renewal of license under the Cinematography Act and was a statutory renewal as in AIR (1957) SC 489. Contractual and statutory renewals differ. ;