RAMCHANDER LAXMINARAYANAN KARVA Vs. JAGANATH KHUBCHAND KARVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this Court has revoked the leave granted to the Appellant herein to sue the Defendants/Respondents under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court and ordered return of the plaint to the Appellant herein for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Revocation, it is not in dispute, was sought for on the ground that the entire cause of action arose in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the Defendants would be put to loss, hardship and difficulty if they had to defend the suit is this Court. The first contention, however, has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the basis of a statement in the plaint that the parties had entered into a compromise within the original side territorial jurisdiction of this court, has accepted the second contention to hold that on principles when convenience of the parties is taken into account, to would be appropriate to revoke the leave to sue the Defendants in this court.

(2.) THE judgment of the Calcuta High Court in the case of BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. RAM CHAND KHOSLA 1982 AIR(Cal) 537) and some other cases on the subject have been cited in the judgment on the doctrine of 'forum of convenience; and it can be said with certainity that the learned single Judge was not unaware of the principle that the court will ordinarily take into consideration the balance of convenience and may if the balance is definitely in favour of the defendant, apply the doctrine of 'forum of convenience; THE Calcutta judgment cited supra is one in which, the court took notice of the transaction out of which the claim had arisen to have taken place at Patna -the place of business out of the defendant firm and the relevant documents relating to the contract and the transactions all being at Patna the defendants being at Patna and then said if the suit is tried in this court, all the said documents and witness will have to be produced before this Court apart from the great inconvenience that will be caused to the appellant, it will have to incur enormous expenses considering the respective advantages and disadvantage of the parties, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances it is in favour of this being tried by a court in Patna. A Bench of this Court in the case of K. MURUGESAN v, SEETHALAKSHMI (19992-I-L.W.277) indicated while considering an appeal refusing to revoke the leave granted to sure in this Court, that if not but the part to the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and without traversing the facts leading to the transactions within the territorial jurisdiction of court, it will not be possible to grant any relief and decide the issues of facts and law, the leave which has already been granted should not be revoked.

(3.) THIS view has been reiterated in several judgments of the courts having original jurisdiction including the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Parasaram v. Chintandas, 1982 AIR(Cal) 537. But then, in considering the balance of convenience, the court is required to see the plaint and facts stated therein. The court has to necessarily see the entire bundle of facts and then to determine the question of convenience. Stating, though with respect to grant of interlocutory injunctions, In Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol.21at pages 364 and 365, the balance of convenience is stated as follows: