Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This is an application for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that no part of the plaintiff's cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court; in the alternative for stay of the suit on the ground of balance of convenience.
(2.) The petitioner's case before me is that pursuant to a contract entered into at Faridabad and/or Delhi there have been series of transactions by and between the plaintiff and the defendant The entire transaction has taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Part payments have been made outside the jurisdiction of this court; as such no part of the cause of action of the plaintiff has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover in the plaint itself, the plaintiff has pleaded various transactions whereby the defendant supplied various goods to the plaintiff; as a result a huge sum of money is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant and said transaction took place outside the jurisdiction of this court. Hence the entire cause of action of the plaintiff as indicated above has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Except that admittedly a sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00 has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's place of office at 1 & 3, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. Although in the plaint itself, the plaintiff has described that its registered office is at Nos. 1 & 3, Brabourne Road, Calcutta but from the extract of the registration certificate it would appear that the plaintiff's registered office is at Delhi and not at Calcutta as wrongly alleged in the plaint. From the various bills that have been submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant which have been accepted by the defendant it would appear that there is a particular clause which confers jurisdiction in respect of all disputes to the Faridabad Court and not at Calcutta. In view of the said agreement as would appear from the submission of the bills which have been accepted by the defendant it was agreed by and between the parties to refer all their disputes to the jurisdiction of the Faridabad Court and not at Calcutta as such according to the petitioner, the plaintiff should not be allowed in breach of the specific agreement to file a suit at Calcutta to the utter inconvenience of the petitioner According to the petitioner, the agreement was not arrived at Nos. 1 & 3, Bra-bourne Road, Calcutta as wrongly alleged by the plaintiff and on the basis of which leave had been obtained from this court. Considering the balance of convenience, this Court should stay the suit as not only the entire transaction has taken place outside the jurisdiction of this court but both the plaintiff and the defendants have their place of business at Faridabad and Delhi and the defendant has no office whatsoever at Calcutta wherefrom the defendant may conduct the case filed by the plaintiff. It would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the defendant if he is compelled to defend the suit here. On the other hand the plaintiff suffers no consequence at all if the case is tried at Delhi or at Faridabad as the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi and place of work at Faridabad which is very close to Delhi.
(3.) Although the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the payment is to be made at Calcutta but such a clause would not appear from the letter which records the agreement arrived at by and between the parties. On the contrary all part payments have been made at Faridabad and at Delhi outside the jurisdiction of this court. From the letter dated 20th of Feb. 1976 it would appear that the payments were to be made by way of Bank draft made out in favour of the plaintiff's company at Faridabad Bank within seven days from the date of the submission of bills. According to the petitioner save and except the payment of Rs. 1,25,000.00 which was paid right at the beginning at the time of entering into the transaction no other part of cause of action of the plaintiff has arisen within the jurisdiction oi this court. Moreover the plaintiff has not made any claim in respect of the said part payment; as such that does not form a part of the plaintiff's cause of action. Various receipts have been annexed to the petition along with bills which would show that part payments have been made on State Bank of India at New Delhi and not at Calcutta.;