Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. M. Datta
REKHAB CHAND JAIN - Appellant
Versus
PARAS DAS BHARTIYA - Respondent
Suit 38 Of 1968
Decided On : JULY 30, 1968
LETTERS PATENT, 1865 - CLAUSE 12 - REVOCATION OF LEAVE - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - MALA FIDE SUIT - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for damages for libel in Calcutta High Court, alleging that the defendant had published a defamatory letter in Calcutta. The defendant applied to revoke the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the court and that the balance of convenience favored trial in Uttar Pradesh, where the letter was written and published.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had not made out a case that the defendant was responsible for publishing the letter in Calcutta and that the averments in the plaint did not amount to causes of action for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction in the Calcutta High Court. The court also found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored trial in Uttar Pradesh, where the letter was written and published and where the witnesses resided. The court further held that the possibility of the suit being barred by limitation should not be a consideration for the court in deciding whether to revoke leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had made out a case that the defendant was responsible for publishing the letter in Calcutta? 2. Whether the averments in the plaint amounted to causes of action for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction in the Calcutta High Court? 3. Whether the balance of convenience favored trial in Uttar Pradesh? 4. Whether the possibility of the suit being barred by limitation should be a consideration for the court in deciding whether to revoke leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had not made out a case that the defendant was responsible for publishing the letter in Calcutta because the averments in the plaint were vague and did not specifically plead that the defendant was responsible for such publication. 2. The court held that the averments in the plaint did not amount to causes of action for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction in the Calcutta High Court because they did not show that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the alleged defamation. 3. The court held that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored trial in Uttar Pradesh because the letter was written and published there, the witnesses resided there, and the records of the Inspector of Schools to whom the letter was sent were located there. 4. The court held that the possibility of the suit being barred by limitation should not be a consideration for the court in deciding whether to revoke leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent because the plaintiff had failed to expedite the hearing of the application and had allowed the time to expire.
Final Decision: The court revoked the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 and for other reliefs. The suit was filed on or about 3rd January, 1968 and at that time on the ex parte prayer of the plaintiff the Court granted the leave to institute this suit.
( 2 ) THE suit is for damages for Rupees 80,000/- for libel supposed to be contained in a letter dated 3rd July, 1967, addressed by the defendant to the District Inspector or Schools.
( 3 ) BEFORE the filing of the suit the plaintiffs solicitor wrote to the defendant stating that the copy of the letter dated 3rd July, 1967, was forwarded to several persons of Jain Community in Calcutta and the letter was published in Calcutta and received wide publicity and the same was to the knowledge of the defendant. It is necessary here to set out the relevant portion of the said letter which ran as follows:--"our client's attention has been drawn to a copy of your letter dated the 3rd July, 1967, addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri. A copy of that letter has been forwarded to several persons of the Jain Community in Calcutta, The letter has been published in Calcutta and has received wide publicity. "
( 4 ) IN the plaint also the plaintiff does not make out a definite case that the defendant had published the copy of the said letter or the contents of the said letter at Calcutta amongst divers members of the Jain Community nor is that fact admitted by the defendant. The relevant paragraph which is paragraph 3 of the plaint is set out below:--"the said letter dated 3rd July, 1967, and/or copies thereof have been widely published to and/or circulated amongst divers persons in the State of Uttar Pradesh out side the aforesaid Jurisdiction. The, said letter was also widely published to and/or circulated amongst divers members of the Jain Community in Calcutta within the said jurisdiction and in particular to one Babu-lal Saraogi at premises No. 196, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Calcutta, within the said jurisdiction by whom the said letter was in the ordinary course of business opened and read, the defendant well knowing that the said letter would and intending that it should be so opened and read. "
( 5 ) PREVIOUS to that in paragraph 2 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that the defendant had written the said letter to the District Inspector of Schools at Mainpuri outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that fact is admitted by the defendant before me in this application.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff next relies on paragraph 5 of the plaint for invoking this Court's jurisdiction. It has been pleaded there that the plaintiff has been lowered in the estimation of right-thinking members of the Society and in particular or the Jain Community in Calcutta within the said jurisdiction. Here also the plaintiff has not stated anywhere that the defendant is responsible for publishing this letter to the members of the Jain Community in Calcutta.
( 7 ) THE plaintiff lastly relies on the statement made in paragraph 8 of the plaint for the purpose of invoking this Court's jurisdiction. The averments made therein are to the effect that the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as his creditor 'at the said address of the plaintiff in Calcutta within the said jurisdiction.
( 8 ) I shall now deal with the said three contentions to find out whether on the aforesaid pleadings the jurisdiction of this Court has been properly invoked in the plaint or not and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 was properly granted or not.
( 9 ) IT is settled law that for the purposes of invoking jurisdiction of the Court the expression "cause of action" has a distinct connotation. Merely saying that something has happened within the jurisdiction of this Court would not be effective in conferring jurisdiction on the Court or to ask for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It must first be a caus
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
