SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

(1.) The three applications, GA No. 247 of 2008, GA No. 248 of 2008 and GA No. 249 of 2008, are by the three defendants seeking revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent or rejection of the plaint. The grounds urged are identical. The defendants claim that no part of the plaintiffs alleged cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction. In the alternative, they contend that even if a small part of the plaintiffs alleged cause of action appears to have arisen within jurisdiction, the balance of convenience demands that the suit should not be continued before this Court. The defendants claim that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action for initiating this action for libel and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) The other application, GA No. 3048 of 2007, is the plaintiffs interlocutory application for injunction restraining similar publication as the one complained of being made.

(3.) The first ground urged by the defendants that no part of the plaintiffs alleged cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction, does not appeal. The plaintiff has pleaded that the impugned publication was contained in newspapers which have been circulated and read within jurisdiction. This plaintiff has done slightly more than making a mere averment in such regard, though even that would have sufficed for this stage. The plaintiff has relied on a certificate that the newspapers which carried the impugned public notice are circulated in the city. Since the averments in the plaint have to be accepted in a demurer application, one has only to look to the plaint as to whether there is any statement that would authorise the Court to receive the action.

(4.) The second aspect of the defendants plea for revocation of the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is an entirely different matter. The defendants say that it would be overwhelmingly inconvenient for them to contest this suit. They suggest that this is not the natural forum. They insinuate that they have been dragged to this Court to be unnecessarily harassed. Several grounds have been urged in support of their contention that the balance of convenience would require that the plaint relating to the suit be returned for the plaintiff to institute the action in Delhi which would be the natural forum.

(5.) It would be necessary to address the defendants contention as to balance of convenience only if it is found that the plaint discloses a cause of action; for, if it does not then it would be meaningless to permit it to be carried elsewhere and a fresh round being started. The impugned publication is a public notice that appeared in the New Delhi editions of The Hindustan Times and The Economic Times newspapers on October 4, 2006 and in the New Delhi edition of The Times of India on October 5, 2006. The substance of the notice is reproduced: "By this public notice, ... general public is hereby informed that Sh. Ashwani Khurana So. Sh. I.C. Khurana, R/o. 5, Green Avenue, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi is planning to sell/transfer/create third party rights in the properties lands owned by M/s. Karma Lakeland (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Spiritual Farm (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Aryadev Farms (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Manvi Farms (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Fidility Farms (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Aashna Farms (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Bali Hirise (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanchenjunga Advertisement (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Adworld India (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Dior Import and Export (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Pease Farms (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Serenity Farms (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s. Gurmat Construction (Pvt.) Ltd., the companies in which aforesaid Mr. Ashwani Khurana and/or his family members has approx. 99% share holding located in village Naurangpur and village Nakhrola district Gurgaon, Haryana, and also lands owned by M/s. Gurmat Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. at Kishangarh/Mehrauli, M/s. Kanchenjunga Advertising (Pvt.) Ltd. at Rajokri and Mr. Ashwani Khurana at Kishangarh and Rajokri himself, through advertisin