P.B. Mukharji, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Plaintiff has optained leave in this case on the ground that the Defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court but that a part of the cause of action rose within and a part outside the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction if this Court. The application is made by the Defendant and resisted by the Plaintiff.
(2.) IN such an application the plaint is the most material document on which the decision should rest, although such decision does not rest merely on a criticism of the pleading. The petition and the affidavits in support of and against the revocation of leave are relevant but must be read subject to the over -riding considerations and facts pleaded in the plaint. It is not unusual that in such petition and affidavits the Plaintiff and the Defendant are prone to overstate their respective cases for and against the leave, and such overstatement should be toned down by reference to the plaint. I, therefore, consider it necessary to proceed straight to analyse the plaint in this suit. The plaint in this suit is by the Muttra Electric Supply Company, Ltd. The Defendant is its employee, the Eesident Engineer of the Plaintiff company at Muttra. The parts of the cause of action that are pleaded to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court are based on the following congeries of facts.
(3.) THE Plaintiff company itself is described; in the cause title of the plaint, as having its "registered office and principal place of "business at No. 15, Shib Thakur Lane, Calcutta -7, within the "jurisdiction of this Court". The prayers sought in the plaint reflect the cause of action. Analysing the reliefs in the plaint, I find the Plaintiff company is asking for a declaration that the employment of the Defendant under the Plaintiff company has been duly and properly terminated by its letter dated June 26, 1954, an injunction restraining the Defendant from functioning and working as Resident Engineer or in any other capacity at Muttra or at any other place where the Plaintiff company carries on business, and an injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the bungalow at Muttra within the compound of the Plaintiff company or any other place of business and in any way handling or interfering with the business, plants, machinery, wirings and cables of the Plaintiff company. It appears from paras. 10 and 11 of the plaint, and it is distinctly pleaded there in express terms, that the Defendant is in actual possession of the bungalow at Muttra in his. capacity as Resident Engineer and that, after the termination of the Defendant's services, his continued possession has become wrongful. The Plaintiff, in this plaint, is, in effect, indirectly asking for the recovery of possession of the bungalow, although, knowing that a claim in that form would be a skit for land or immovable property outside the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, hit by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, it has done it under the cover of a prayer for injunction. In particular, the form of injunction, in which the relief in the plaint is couched, is significant. The form is, as I have already set out, one asking for an injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the bungalow. Ho question of entering the bungalow arises, having regard to the express pleading in paras. 10 and 11 where it is pleaded as a fact that the Defendant is already in the bungalow and is in possession of it. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the applicant that by the very nature of the plaint, so far as this relief is concerned, it is better tried at Muttra and, by the formulation of the prayer in the shape of an injunction, the Plaintiff company should not be allowed to cover up the fact that the particular relief in respect thereof in this suit is essentially one for the possession of the bungalow.;