DHRUV T S BARDWAJ Vs. NANDINI VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three intra Court appeals concentrate in challenging a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in A. Nos. 6474 to 6476 of 2009 the first one to vacate the order of injunction granted on 8.9.2009, the second one to dismiss the suit as not maintainable and the third one to revoke the leave originally granted to file the suit.

(2.) These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances:

(3.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the Appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Raman would submit that the revocation of leave has not been ordered on the ground that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction, but has been ordered as a penalty against the Appellants; that the same is erroneous; that as per the judicial pronouncements, the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be determined based only upon the averments in the plaint that when the first Respondent has admitted the address, relying upon the submissions made by the second Respondent and concluding that the plaint address is incorrect are erroneous that it is pertinent to note that part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court that in fact, the second Respondent had indeed submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court as he had filed vakalath without marking protest on the same that there was no order restraining the Appellants from traveling out of Chennai that in the instant case, the paramount interest of the children namely the Appellants, should be taken into account and the welfare of the child must be looked into that it is settled proposition of law that where an application for revocation of leave raises questions of difficulty and importance, then the Court must not revoke the leave based on affidavit evidence but must dismiss the application for revocation of leave and proceed to determine the suit in accordance with law and that the learned Single Judge has not applied the ratio of the said precedents, but has erroneously determined the issue on summary jurisdiction.