Court Can't Evaluate Evidence While Deciding Application For Revocation Of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent: Madras High Court

"The scope of enquiry in an application for revocation of leave is very limited, inasmuch as the Court has to take the allegations in the pliant as true and see whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court."

While dismissing an application for revocation of leave that was granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent (Original Civil Jurisdiction of High Court) in a money suit, Justice R Subramanian pointed out that the law is settled on court's jurisdiction to try civil suits. Under Section 120 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is stated that Sections 17, 19 and 20 of the Code about jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits are inapplicable when the High Court exercises its Original Civil Jurisdiction.

A combined reading of Section 120 of CPC and clause 12 of Letters Patent Act indicates that the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction can receive and hear suits even when only a part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, despite none of the defendants residing there or carrying on business within its jurisdiction, the court said in the order.

The applicant counsel, Advocate D.Nellaiappan, refuted the respondent's claim that the documents in question were executed in Chennai. The applicants (defendants in the original money suit) argued further that monies were advanced at Thindivanam and documents were executed in Puducherry, so no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court.

He also relied upon the judgment in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company (1992) for placing the proposition that the parties by agreement cannot invest jurisdiction in a Court which does not otherwise have jurisdiction.

The respondents' counsel, Advocate N. Jyothi, contended that while granting leave or while considering the application for revocation of leave, the Court has to assume that the claims in the plaint are true. Assuming that even a miniscule part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction as stated in the plaint, leave can be granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act, he argued. Hence, according to him, the claim that the agreement was executed at Chennai and the documents of title were deposited with the 1st defendant in his house at Chennai has to be taken at face value.

Considering the arguments of both sides, the court opined after referring to Raghavan v. Kalanithi Maran ( 2013):

"The question whether the particular document viz., agreement dated 17.10.2011 was executed at Chennai in the residence of the 1 st plaintiff or it was executed at Pondicherry as alleged by the defendants is a question of fact which will have to be decided on evidence."

The court recorded in its order that any dispute on the question of fact regarding jurisdiction can be allowed to be raised only in the written statement, whereafter the court can decide the said question based on evidence placed on record, but not before that.

Placing reliance on Indian Mineral and Chemicals Co. and others Vs. Deutsche Bank (2004), Secretary of State Vs. Golabrai Paliram (1932) and Isha Distribution House Private Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and Another, the court observed:

"In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that except in rare cases, the question of jurisdiction, particularly territorial jurisdiction, which depends on the evidence should be decided only along with the other issues in the suit after the evidence is recorded."

On another aspect of the case, the court also stated that once a party has acquiesced in the conduct and participated in further proceedings, he cannot resort to an application for revocation of leave granted at a later stage.

Justice R Subramanian was not convinced by the reasons cited by the applicant for not filing the application for revocation sooner, and availing the same only 7 years after the filing of the suit. The court referred to the following observation in the case of P.T.Ummer Koya v.. Tamil Nadu Chess Association (2005) to arrive at a similar conclusion:

"…the person aggrieved of the grant of leave has to approach the Court at the earliest point of time and seek for revocation without due participation in the other proceedings. In other words, an application for revocation of leave should be made at the early stage of the suit and delay and acquiescence is a bar to such an application."

Finally, the application for revocation of leave was dismissed.

Case Title: R.Mathiazhagan & 2 Ors. v. P.J Ethiraj & 2 Ors.

Case No: A.No.23 of 2020 in A.No.1702 of 2013 in C.S.No.247 of 2013