A court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants and the court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An application for amendment of the plaint should be allowed if the amendments sought are necessary and relevant for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties and the delay in filing the application is not such as to disentitle the plaintiff to make the application.

( 1 ) THESE are three applications. The two applications are for revocation of leave under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent taken out by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The other is an application for amendment of the plaint taken out by the plaintiff. By consent of the parties all the three applications are taken up and are heard together.

( 2 ) MR. Biswaroop Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendant 1 in the application taken out on his behalf for revocation of leave under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent submitted that on the basis of the plaint filed in this suit no cause of action against the defendant 1 arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, so far as the said defendant is concerned this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit. Mr. Gupta also urged that in any event the plaint does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever against the defendant No. 1. Therefore, no leave could be granted under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent inasmuch as the suit itself was not maintainable against the defendant 1. Similar contentions were also raised by Mr. Gour Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the defendant 2 on whose behalf the other application for revocation of leave under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent has been taken out.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties in all these applications it is necessary to note what case the plaintiff has made out in the plaint as against the defendants. There are three defendants in this suit. The third defendant B. M. Singh and Sons is the sole selling agent of the products of the plaintiff and as such it has been made a party to this suit but no relief has been claimed against it in this suit as will appear from para 22 of the plaint, but the defendant 3 has been joined in this suit as the plaintiff has been advised to impaled the said defendant, as his presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the disputes. Thus the defendant 3 is a defendant, which in common parlance is known as pro forma defendant. The case of the plaintiff as laid in the plaint is that the defendant 2 was the Branch Manager of the plaintiff of its Varanasi Unit. The defendant 1 was a director of the plaintiff and is the father of the defendant 2. By a written agreement dated 1st June, 1973 made within the jurisdiction of this Court in Calcutta the plaintiff appointed the defendant 3 as the sole selling agent of its products and as such agent the defendant 3 became entitled to receive from the plaintiff certain commission on percentage basis on the value of the products of the plaintiff sold. It is next pleaded that with effect from Aug. 1978 the defendant 3 appointed or engaged the defendant 1, inter alia, as its agent to watch the interest of the defendant 3 at Varanasi and the defendant 3 agreed to pay to the defendant 1 one per cent of the commission due to the defendant 3 from the plaintiff in respect of the Varanasi unit. The plaintiff was informed of the said arrangement between the defendant 3 and the defendant 1 by a letter dt. 4th Dec. , 1978 by the defendant 3 which was received by the plaintiff at its registered office in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff duly made all payments to the defendant 1 and to the defendant No. 3 in terms of the above arrangement. It is next pleaded that the above arrangement was modified or varied with effect from 1st Aug. , 1980 by an agreement between the defendant 1 and the defendant 3. One of such variation was that from Aug. , 1980 every month an amount equivalent to about 1% of the commission due to the defendant 3 for the preceding month would be paid to the defendant 1 and this would be treated as payment on defendant 3's special account. The other variation was that all amounts paid to the defendant 1 by the plaintiff's Varanasi unit on behalf of defendant 3 should be confirmed by the plaintiff's Calcutta office as per existing practice and the said a