JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 24th October, 1991. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a summary suit against the respondent Sh. Vallabh Glass Works Limited (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The case of the plaintiff was that it had deposited a sum of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest to be charged @ 19 per annum, with the defendant. The said deposit was to be for a period of 90 days. The aforesaid amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- was given to the defendant-company through Cheque No. 933251 dated 5th July, 1983 in the bank account of the defendant at Bombay. The defendant issued a deposit receipt for the aforesaid amount dated 11-7-1983. The aforesaid deposit receipt contained an endorsement to the effect Subject to Anand jurisdiction. The date of maturity of the aforesaid amount was to expire on 3-10-1983. According to the plaintiff the defendant failed to pay the amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- and requested the plaintiff to continue the said deposit till the end of November, 1983 and for that purpose, handed over to the plaintiff 5 post dated cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each drawn on a Bombay bank. The defendant had also issued a cheque dated 30th November, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 22,288.32 by way of interest on the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This cheque was also drawn in favour of the plaintiff payable in Bombay. The plaintiff submitted the aforesaid 5 cheques for payment but the same were dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds". The plaintiff in these circumstances filed a summary suit against the defendant for Rs. 10,00,000/- as principal and interest @ 19 per annum with 90 days rests.

3. The defendant in the written statement submitted that the fixed deposit receipt contained the endorsement Subject to Anand jurisdiction and as such the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest with 90 days rest. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any interest as the deposit receipt provided that interest will cease on maturity. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties learned single Judge of the High Court framed the following issues.

4. The learned single Judge negatived the contention of the plaintiff that it had never agreed to the condition of Anand jurisdiction made on the deposit receipt. The learned single Judge however accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the suit was also based on the five post dated cheques of Rupees 2,00,000/- each and those cheques being payable in Bombay the Court at Bombay had jurisdiction to decide the case. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the High Court at Bombay had already granted leave to the plaintiff under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. It was also held that if a party had more than one cause of action and the suit was based on more than one cause of action it was always open to that party to give up any one cause of action or rely only on one cause of action, It was also held that the leave had been granted to the plaintiff on the basis of the averments made in para 13 of the plaint which clearly mentioned that the deposit was obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff at Bombay. The monies were deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant at Bombay in the defendants account in the Bank of Baroda, Nariman Point Branch, Bombay. The cheques for repayment of the deposit were given by the defendant drawn on Bank of Baroda, Nariman Point Branch, Bombay. The plaintiff had further stated that though the entire cause of action had arisen in Bombay the plaintiff as an abundant caution was applying for approval under Cl. XII Letters Patent also since the registered o