Judgment:
The Court : No part of this plaintiffs cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
In this money claim, the plaintiff has made the following averment at paragraph 13 of the plaint to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court :
That cause of action of the instant suit arose when vide letter dated 9th June, 2008 addressed to and received by the defendant as his residence, more fully described in the cause title of the plaint; wherein the plaintiff demanded prepayment of loan as against the defendant to the extent of Rs.12,02,431/- only within interest @24% per annum and the defendant vide his letter dted 16th June, 2008 denied the said claim of the plaintiff.
The aforesaid letter dated 16th June, 2008 of the defendant was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff at the plaintiffs place of business and the same was accordingly received by the plaintiff at his said place of business, being 23/24, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata 700 001, wherein the aforesaid loan amount was repayable by the defendant to the plaintiff, within the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station, within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Honble Court. There are three statements in paragraph 13 of the plaint pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. There is a sentence to the effect that a letter of June 16, 2008 by which the defendant denied the plaintiffs claim was sent to the plaintiffs place of business and received thereat within jurisdiction.
There is a further statement that the loan was repayable by the defendant to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station.
There is no pleading that there was any agreement between the parties under which the loan was to be repaid to the plaintiff at the plaintiffs place of business.
There is no suggestion that the defendant as debtor was liable to seek the plaintiff as creditor and make payment to the plaintiff at the plaintiffs place of business within jurisdiction.
The territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be attracted in a rather perfunctory manner and the relevant averments at paragraph 13 of the plaint do not show any nexus of the plaintiffs cause of action with this Court. GA No.106 of 2010, which is the defendants application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or the alternative prayer for transfer of the suit to the appropriate court, has been taken up by consent of the parties.
At the time that the matter was taken up in connection with another interlocutory application in the suit (GA No.1974 of 2010), the plaintiff did not indicate any reservation. After the matter was taken up and it was found that no part of the plaintiffs cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction, Counsel seeks time to rely on authorities.
Such permission has been declined. GA No.106 of 2010 is allowed. Leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is revoked. It will be open to the plaintiff to bring the claim before an appropriate court.
In view of the finding that no part of the plaintiffs cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, all other interlocutory applications in the suit fail. GA No.1974 of 2010 is dismissed without any adjudication on merits.
There will be no order as to costs in either case.
Urgent certified Photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.