S. U. KAMDAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Chamber Summons are initiated by both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The defendant has taken out the chamber summons being Chamber Summons No. 1579 of 2003 for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of Letters patent and the plaintiffs have taken out Chamber summons No. 139 of 2004 for amendment of the plaint by insertion of certain words in paragraph 23 of the plaint which deals with the jurisdiction of this court. In my view, it is necessary to consider Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 taken out by the defendants first so as to ascertain whether as on the date of the filing of the suit and of obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the letters patent this Court, on averments made in the plaint, had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. If this Court had jurisdiction then consequently chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 must fail and if this Court had no jurisdiction as on the date of the filing of the suit then Chamber summons No. 139 of 2004 must succeed and the leave has to be revoked. If there was no jurisdiction to the Court on the date of the filing of the suit then by virtue of subsequent amendment in paragraph 23 of the plaint which deals with jurisdictional issue, the plaintiff cannot add the averments so as to give this Court jurisdiction which was not existing as on the date when leave was obtained under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case which are relevant to determine the aforesaid issues are as under :-

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs are a financial institution and has filed a suit in this court for the recovery of sum of Rs. 3,72,87,086/- with interest thereon at the rate of 15. 75% per annum. Under prayer Clause (c) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the amount due to the plaintiffs are secured by valid, subsisting and binding equitable mortgage of the properties of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 more particularly described in Exhibits "m-1" to "m-3". By prayer Clause (d) of the plaint the plaintiffs had prayed that on the defendants failing to redeem the said mortgaged property within the time limit stipulated by this Court, the said property should be sold under the orders and directions of this Court and net sale proceeds should be applied towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim mentioned in the suit.

( 4 ) PARAGRAPH 23 of the plaint, as it stood as on the date of the filing of the present suit which deals with the jurisdictional aspect of the case reads as under:"23. The plaintiffs are carrying on business inter aha at Mumbai. The payment were to be made to the plaintiffs under the aforesaid facilities at mumbai and sum of Rs. 6,41,253/- was infact paid at Mumbai. A material part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai. However, the defendants carry on business outside Mumbai. The Agreements were executed outside Mumbai. The mortgaged properties are situated outside. That part of the cause of action has arisen outside Mumbai. This court will have therefore jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit upon leave being granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent this Honble Court being granted to the plaintiffs, which is separately applied for. "

( 5 ) THE present suit arises out of the amount of loan lent and advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1. The said amount was advanced against the pledge of equity shares in favour of the plaintiffs and agreement- cum-pledge-cum guarantee. In respect of the said amount various securities are furnished by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs, namely, shares of dsq Software Ltd. , DSQ Biotech Ltd. , Digital Equipment, etc. Under Exhibit M-1, m-2 and M-3 immovable properties of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 situated at Pondicherry are the subject-matter of equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs herein. The present suit is instituted inter alia to enforce the aforesaid securities in respect of the said immovable properties. In the present ca