The court has jurisdiction to try a suit only if part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction.

Ruma Pal, J.: This is an application by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for taking the plaint in the suit off the file after revocation of leave under clause 12 of the Letter Patent : The ground on which revocation leave under clause 12 has been sought is that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. This principles for deciding an application for revocation of leave under clause 12 and for taking the plaint off the file under Order 7, Rule 11 are well established. First the Court is required to construe the plaint as it stands on the assumption that the allegations contained in the plaint are correct.

3. Second the jurisdiction of this Court under clause 12 of the Letter's Patent extends to matters in which each of the defendants is within the jurisdiction of this Court and where they are not so situate, if part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court.

4. It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 1 has its registered office at Manipal in the State of Karnataka. The only other defendants in the action viz., defendants Nos. 2 and 3, according to the plaint reside at Manipal in the State of Karnataka.

5. As none of the defendants, according to the plaint either carryon business or reside within the jurisdiction of this Court, the question is whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants No.2 and 3 have argued that, even if the Court has jurisdiction, on the principle of balance of convenience, this Court should return the plaint to be represented before the Karnataka High Court within the jurisdiction of which the company was registered and the defendants were carrying on business.

6. The question whether the facts pleaded as attracting the jurisdiction of this Court form part of the cause of action in the suit will have to determine in the context of the averments in the plaint and the reliefs claimed.

7. In the plaint the plaintiff claims to be a registered share-holder and owner of 550 shares in the defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are the directors of the defendant No.1 has stated that by a notice dated 26.8.1993 the Annual General Meeting of the company was to be held at Karnataka. The defendant No.2 had requested the plaintiff to give proxy in his favour. Two share-holders of the company had, after the issuance of the notice date 26.8.1993 proposed themselves for election to the office of the Director of the Company. The proposals were not taken up and only business relating to certain items were transacted at the Annual General Meeting held on 30.9.93. The defendant No. 2 as the Chairman of the company adjourned the Annual General Meeting to 7th October, 1993 to consider the balance items in the Agenda. The proposals, according to the plaintiff, were required to be served on each share-holder of the company or advertised under s. 257 of the Act. The company advertised the proposals in two newspapers on 22.9.93 and 24.9.93. It was shorter than the period specified under s. 257 of the Act. The defendant had requested for proxies wrongfully. It is stated that the proxies so collected by the defendant No.2 were equally illegal and invalid and could not be acted upon. The proxies received by the defendant No. 1 were illegal as they were not signed by both the joint share-holders of the Company. The further grievance is that there was Public Issue by the defendant company in July, 1991. The defendants Nos. 2 and 2 had applied for and obtained a large number of equity shares. The allotment of shares were illegal and invalid and therefore the allottees could not exercise voting rights either in person or proxy at the adjourned Annual General Meeting. The allotment of shares was also illegal. In the plaint it has been stated that many share-holders from whom the second defendant had collected proxies had stated that the proxies were given by them on the representation that the defendants Nos. 2 & 3 woul