1945 (2) TMI 19 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Grounds for Revocation of Leave
3. Balance of Convenience
4. Allegations of Abuse of Process
5. Assignment as Part of Cause of Action

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The primary issue was whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The plaintiff was an assignee of a claim originally held by Lachmi Debi, and the entire cause of action, according to the defendants, arose outside Calcutta. The Court held that for the purposes of jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the assignment must be regarded as a part of the cause of action. It was established that "every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" constitutes the cause of action, and the assignment was a necessary fact to be proved.

2. Grounds for Revocation of Leave:
The Court has the discretion to revoke leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The grounds for such revocation include the absence of any part of the cause of action within jurisdiction, abuse of process, and balance of convenience. The Court noted that the discretion must be exercised based on the materials available, including the respective occupations and places of residence of the parties and the facts constituting the cause of action.

3. Balance of Convenience:
The balance of convenience is a significant factor in deciding whether to maintain or revoke the leave. The Court must consider the convenience of both parties. In this case, the defendants argued that defending the suit in Calcutta would cause them substantial inconvenience and hardship. Conversely, the plaintiff contended that filing the suit in Bhiwani would equally inconvenience him. The Court found that the balance of convenience was fairly even between the parties.

4. Allegations of Abuse of Process:
The defendants alleged that the suit was filed in Calcutta to harass them and was an abuse of the Court's process. The Court held that mere allegations of abuse without substantial evidence are insufficient to revoke leave. The Court found no evidence of bad faith or collusion between the plaintiff and Lachmi Debi to create jurisdiction in Calcutta.

5. Assignment as Part of Cause of Action:
The Court reaffirmed that the assignment of a claim is an important part of the cause of action for an assignee. The assignment must be proved to entitle the assignee to the judgment of the Court. The Court cited several precedents supporting this view, including cases where the assignment was held to be part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes.

Conclusion:
The application for revocation of leave was dismissed. The Court held that a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction due to the assignment. The balance of convenience did not decisively favor the defendants, and there was no substantial evidence of abuse of process. The leave granted to the plaintiff was maintained, and the defendants were given a month to file their written statements.