Sanjib Banerjee, J.

The reference to the Full Bench is for the purpose of resolving the perceived conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court.

The suit has been instituted on the Original Side of this Court by citing the situs of the defendant bank’s zonal office within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court – the old town of Calcutta that is now but a small part of this overgrown metropolis. Since the plaintiff did not invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of the situs of its cause of action, in whole or in part, it had not cared to obtain leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The plaintiff has claimed a declaration that the discounting or discharge of a fixed deposit receipt of Rs.25 lakh by the defendant bank was fraudulent and a decree is sought for the maturity value of the fixed deposit and the interest thereon. The suit progressed to trial and final arguments when an objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court to receive the action was taken.

The order of the learned Single Judge of August 7, 2008 records that the belated challenge to the maintainability of the suit in this Court was entertained as a preliminary issue. The order proceeds to trace that the defendant bank contended that as it was the plaintiff’s case that the fixed deposit had been fraudulently encashed at the bank’s branch elsewhere in Calcutta outside the ordinary original jurisdiction, the suit could not have been brought on the original side of this Court. Before the suit court, the bank urged that the bank’s zonal office had no nexus with the plaintiff’s cause of action and this Court was incompetent to receive the suit. The order recounts that counsel for the plaintiff had relied on a Division Bench judgment reported at 2002 (1) Cal LJ 366 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal) for the principle that when a defendant carried on business within jurisdiction, the plaintiff would be entitled to institute the suit in this Court though no part of the cause of action may have arisen within jurisdiction. The order appreciates the attention of Court being drawn to a more recent Division Bench judgment reported at AIR 2008 Cal 148 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal) which was apparently in conflict with the Steel Authority ruling. The learned Single Judge records:

“When in view of the decisions in Food Corporation of India and Steel Authority, both of which are binding on me, the defendant’s contention that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit must be rejected, and it should be held that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, I find that in view of a recent division bench decision of this court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarawal, AIR 2008 Cal 148, also a decision binding on me, it must be held that since no part of the cause of action, if any, had arisen within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.”

On such appreciation of the legal position the following order ensued, culminating in a reference to this Full Bench:

“For these reasons, I make the following order. The Registrar, Original Side is directed to place the whole matter before my Lord the Chief Justice at once, so that for resolving the conflict between the two division bench decisions – Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, 2002 (1) CLJ 366 and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal, AIR 2008 Cal 148, a reference may be made to a larger bench. Hearing of the suit is adjourned sine die.”

The plaintiff says that clause 12 of the Letters Patent permits a suitor to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court merely on the defendant dwelling or carrying on business or personally working for gain, at the time of commencement of the suit, within the local limits of the ordinary