KAMAL SRIMAL Vs. PADAM CHAND SINDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in the instant case, are a little intriguing and the points involved are movel. This is an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and for certain other consequential reliefs. Sm. Kamal srimal is the daughter of Padam Chand sindhar. Sm. Kamal Srimal instituted a suit against the respondent in this court being suit No. 209 of 1977. In the plaint, the plaintiff tells the story that she is the daughter of the defendant and that the defendant had deposited with her a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 28,000/- at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court on 4th February 1974 and 13th June, 1975, respectively. The said sums were repayable after 12 years from the respective dates of deposit with simple interest. The plaintiff claims that she is a business-lady of repute and has been carrying on business on a substantial scale. During the year 1974, the plaintiff's husband was the Managing Director of certain company and he had to travel to delhi and the plaintiff used to accompany him. The plaintiff had a Saving's Bank account with the Bank of Baroda, New Delhi. Certain cheque leaves were lost and a complaint was lodged with the notice. It is stated that on 4th March, 1974 the plaintiff received a letter written by khaitan and Partners, Solicitors and Advocate on behalf of the defendant alleging that the defendant had advanced to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-by way of loan and by way of repayment of the alleged outstanding the plaintiff had signed, issued and handed over to the defendant a cheque for Rs. 80,000/- which had been dishonored by non payment. The plaintiff alleges that the book containing cheque leaves had been stolen and the signature of the plaintiff had been forged. The plaintiff also claims damages on account of defamation for publication of the alleged fact that the cheque given by the plaintiff had been dishonoured. In the premises, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration that the cheque for Rs. 80,000/-was void, direction on the defendant to deliver up the cheque and return of the other blank cheque leaves of Bank of Baroda, injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or repeating the statement that the plaintiff had drawn any cheque in favour of the defendant, decree for Rs. 1,000,000/- as and by way of damages and other consequential declaration about the suras of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 28,000/-

(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that this suit was instituted after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It was alleged that the original deposits of rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 28,000/- were made at Calcutta within the jurisdiction containing the terms of repayment after 12 years. The cheque was presented at delhi and the cheque leaves were alleged to have been stolen at Delhi.

(3.) IT is apparent that the suit comprises of different causes of action one of which is damages for defamation. In respect of the same, it alleged that the statement defaming the plaintiff had been published at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the part of cause of action for damages for defamation has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the jurisdiction of this Court can be validly attracted to the same. The other part of the cause of action is the forgery of the cheque and stealing of the cheque leaves. The Cheque was presented at delhi and therefore the cheque must have been forged at Delhi. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that no part of the cause of action had arisen, in so far as the forgery of the cheque and the stealing of the cheque leaves are concerned within the jurisdiction of this Court and no leave having been obtained under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent of 1865, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. It was urged that no leave had been obtained under Clause 14 of the letters Patent and therefore this joinder of causes of action was bad.