Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) On 18-1-1978, the plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement dated 12-7-1977, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1, its servants, agents and assigns from forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- under a Bank guarantee No. 19/77 given by the defendant No. 2 on 9-7-1977, perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 2 from making any payment in terms of the said Bank guarantee, decree for Rs. 93,691.92, Rs. 45,850/- and Rs. 35,836/- against the defendant No. 1 in terms of paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the plaint, alternatively an enquiry into damages, declaration that the notice dated 2-7-78 issued by the defendant No. 1 was null and void, Temporary injunction, receiver, etc.
(2.) The facts alleged in the plaint were that on 12-7-1977 the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase 8000 metric tons of Sal seeds of certain description and quality at agreed price on terms and conditions contained therein. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff was to furnish security to the defendant No. 1 for Rs. 5,00,000/- who had agreed to accept the security in the form of a Bank guarantee in lieu of cash security. Pursuant to this agreement the defendant No. 2 had issued the said Bank guarantee No. 19/77 dated 9-7-1977 from its Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had lifted 4416.363 metric tons of goods on payment of Rs. 39,50,000/- but the goods were found to be not of agreed quality or description. The plaintiff always was and till is ready and willing to perform its part of the contract but the defendant No. 1 committed breach of the contract by supplying goods of inferior quality. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 by a letter dated 2-1-1978 wrongfully and illegally alleged that the plaintiff had committed breach of the contract by its failure to take delivery of the goods. The said purported notice was given in terms of the contract dated 12-7-1977 threatening to cancel the contract and to forfeit the security deposit. In paragraph 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction by issue of the said Bank guarantee from the Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch of the defendant No. 2 and prayed for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as well as Clause 14 of the Letters Patent to institute the present suit.
(3.) On careful reading of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff proceeded on the basis that the issue of the Bank guarantee is the only part of the cause of action which arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and that all other causes of action arose outside. Leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent was prayed for to add claims for damages against the defendants which cause of action admittedly arose outside jurisdiction of this Court.;