The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Clause XII of Letters Patent in determining the jurisdiction of the court to entertain suits for land or other immovable property.

JUDGMENT

S C Gupte, J. - These five miscellaneous applications have been taken out by the respective parties to the suit, Notice of Motion No.785 of 2019, Notice of Motion No.1452 of 2019, Interim Application No.28 of 2020 and Interim Application (L) No.2998 of 2021 being applications of original Defendant No.1 and Interim Application No.643 of 2020 being original Plaintiff's application. All five misc. applications are being disposed of by this common order after hearing learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Defendant No.1 does not press Notice of Motion No.785 of 2019 and seeks leave to withdraw the same. None of the contesting parties has any objection to such withdrawal.

3. Notice of Motion No.1452 of 2019 is for revocation of leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to the Plaintiff for filing the present suit in this court. This leave was granted on the footing that a part of the immovable properties, in respect of which relief has been sought in the suit, is situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of this court and upon leave being granted under clause XII, the suit could be maintained in this court. This leave is sought to be revoked by Defendant No.1, purportedly on the ground that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all, whether with or without leave.

4. Interim Application No.28 of 2020 is an application of original Defendant No.1 for variation of the original interim order passed in the suit, purportedly on the ground that there has been a change in circumstances and that the court should consider appropriate relief under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code") as a result of such change. This Interim Application is considered together with Notice of Motion No.1452 of 2019 in the order passed below.

5. Interim Application (L) No.2998 of 2021 is taken out by original Defendant No.1 for amendment of his written statement with a view to add the various grounds urged in support of Defendant No.1's application for revocation of leave as part of his written statement.

6. Interim Application No.643 of 2020 is the original Plaintiff's application for appointment of receiver, purportedly on the ground that Defendant No.1 is likely to commit a breach of the original interim order passed by this court in the suit, as a result of what Defendant No.1 calls is a change of circumstances and which is the subject matter of his miscellaneous application, namely, Interim Application No.28 of 2020, referred to above. Consideration of this interim application will be a fall out of what is decided in the interim application of Defendant No.1 and the same, accordingly, will be dealt with in the present order.

7. The parties to the suit are related to one Shamrao Ramchandra Maskar, father of both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 though through different mothers. Late Shamrao was married to one Tarabai, who is Defendant No.6 to the present suit. The Plaintiff is the only issue out of that wedlock. In 1965, Shamrao allegedly married one Shyamla, who was originally Defendant No.4 in the present suit, and who has since deceased. Her legal heirs being already on record, she has been deleted from the array of parties. There have been three issues out of this wedlock, all of whom are party defendants to the present suit, namely, Raju Shamrao Maskar, who is Defendant No.1, Mrs. Meena Vijay Kadam, who is Defendant No.2, and Mrs. Rekha Vijay Rachurkar, who is Defendant No.3. Mother of late Shamrao was also a party to the present suit as Defendant No.5, but having deceased during the pendency of the suit, her name has been deleted, since her legal heirs have already been on record as parties to the suit. The family tree of late Shamrao disclosing his relationship qua the parties is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the plaint. Late Shamrao was a partner in a partnership firm by the name of M/s Petals Cosmetics. This firm was carrying on a business of