- (1.) This motion has been taken out for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and/or dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action against the defendant No. 1. In the petition being the grounds of Notice of Motion it has been stated that no part of the cause of action has arisen as per disclosure of the plaintiff within the territorial limit of this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and also non- disclosure of cause of action as a whole. In an action of this nature the Court is to look into the plaint and plaint alone. As far as non-disclosure of cause of action as contended by learned Counsel Mr. Mitra appearing for the defendant No. 1 is concerned, I do not accept his submission as it has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 26 of the plaint that on account of the aforesaid dealings and transactions there is now due and owing by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 32,91,85,305.00.
(2.) The claim and contention may be true, may not be, but at this stage statements and averments of the plaint are to be assumed to be correct. No amount of evidence nor any other materials can be looked into to examine the correctness of the averment. I read the plaint as a whole and I find the action of . the plaintiff against the defendants and each of them is the defendants' failure to transfer, convey an area of land measuring about 50,930 acre in Deogarh in favour of the plaintiff, though payment of the price of the same has been made within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The land was allotted subject to permission, which was to be obtained by the defendants. On receipt of the possession the plaintiff had also acquired the private land in and around the said plot of land at Rangelbeda site for establishment of a big project and to develop in all respect and for constructing office site etc. Costs of acquiring private land and construction of building and development of site are Rs. 12,90,527.80p. Ultimately, the permission could not be obtained nor the said land could be conveyed by the defendants. On account of this failure as an alternative measure defendant allotted non-forest land situates at Berkote site by granting a lease for a long period. For consideration of this lease the plaintiff paid and deposited a sum of Rs. 12,46,025.00p and spent on stamp-duty of Rs. 62,3027- and other incidental expenses aggregating to Rs. 14,47,854.60p. at Barkote site. The defendant agreed to transfer 45.31 acres of land though the lease was granted as above but failed and neglected and/or refused to remove unauthorized encroachment and trespassers to hand over possession of the said 45.31 acres of land at Barkote site. Thus, the defendants in both the cases committed breach of their agreement and/or assurance. As a result whereof the plaintiff has suffered damages.
(3.) In the plaint I find the plaintiff stated that all the negotiations, dealings and transactions took place at the plaintiffs place of business, payment of the premium of lease in lieu of untransferred plot of land was made at the place of business of the plaintiff also. The claim of the plaintiff, as it appears on account of breach of the agreement, mostly related to refund of the consideration money and also reimbursement of other costs and expenses allegedly incurred by the plaintiff on account of failure.;