Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff carries on business at 201-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff lent and advanced money to his elder brother, Omprakash Bhar Pilania, who used to carry on business under the name and style of Laxmi Narain Omprakash as sole proprietor at premises No. 272, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad Between 1st April, 1974 and 20th October, 1976, the plaintiff lent and advanced to Omprakash Rs. 55,940/-. The agreement in respect of the amount was entered into at Ahmedabad Initially the rale interest was 12% per annum. With effect from 24th March, 1980 the rate of interest was enhanced to 18% per annum by mutual concent. The agreement to enhance the rate of interest was entered into at the plaintiffs place of business at Calcutta. Omprakash repaid a total sum of Rs. 9,79241 P in two instalments on 23rd October, 1976 and again on 5th April, 1979 at Calcutta. In the books of accounts of the plaintiff it was recorded that the amount was received by cash transferred from account of Bhar Pilania Company Omprakash died intestate on or about 20th June, 1980 leaving him surviving his widow (Defendant No. 1) and his minor children (Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4) as his only heirs and legal representatives. It has bi alleged in the plaint that on the death of Omprakash, the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 took possession of the entire estate including the sole proprietary business of Omprakash and are in possession of the same. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,10,458 12P as due and payable by the Defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further claimed that the amount was payable at the plaintiffs place of business at Calcutta.
(2.) The suit was filed after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. This application has been made for revocation of the leave that has been granted it has been contended by Mr. Das that in the first place the natural forum of the suit was at Ahmedabad. He has argued that Omprakash, now deceased, and the defendants all resided at Ahmedabad. The loan was advanced at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff actually went to Ahmedabad to give this money to the defendant and nothing has really happened so far as the loan is concerned in Calcutta. The only thing that has been pleaded in the plaint in respect of the loan transaction which took place in Calcutta is an agreement to enhance the rate of interest. Mr. Das has argued that the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked on this ground alone. It has next been contended that tho balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of the suit to be tried at Ahmedabad. The defendant No. 1 is a widow with three minor children who are the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It will cause great hardship and inconvenience to them to come to Calcutta and defend this suit. The defendants have no place of business in Calcutta and they will have to bring all the books of accounts and other evidence to Calcutta to defend this suit. The persons who are in a position to testify are all residents of Ahmedabad and will have to be brought to Calcutta at the time of hearing of this suit.
(3.) I am unable to unhold the contention made on behalf of tho defendants it is well settled that in deciding the question whether the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked or not the allegations made in the plaint must be taken to be correct. The plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action of this suit has arisen in part within the local limits of this Court. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff also carries on business at Ahmedabad. It will undoubtedly be of great inconvenience to the defendants to come to Calcutta to defend this suit and bring all their books of accounts and other evidence. It will be equally inconvenient for the plaintiff to go to Ahmedabad and to prosecute the suit there and carry all his books and other evidence. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the principal witness in this case is the plaintiffs father who is a very old man and the plaintiffs wife is unwell and it is very difficult for the plaintiff to leave Calcutta for a long period of time.;