The court's jurisdiction can be established based on conclusive evidence, such as the register of firms, and applications for revocation of leave must be genuine and meritorious.

JUDGMENT

Sen, J. - This is an application by, defendant 6, Hajee Adam Abdul Bhakoor, for an order that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court to the plaintiff to institute this suit in this Court be revoked, in the alternative for an order staying the suit. There was a prayer for security for costs; that was abandoned by learned Counsel for the petitioner. This motion arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff Ali Mohamed Ebrahim Shakoor against six defendants. They are (1) Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essack, for self, (2) Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essack, as manager of Peer Mohamedi Fund, (3) Ahmed Hajee Peer Mohamed, (4) Abdul Karim Adam, (5) Taiyub AH Mohamed, and (6) Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor. It will be more convenient, I think, to refer to the defendants by their respective numbers and not by their names which are confusing by reason of the fact that the names of the different defendants are very similar and seem to be a permutation and combination of one another's names. Defendant 1 is the same person as defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the brother of defendant 1 and defendant 4 is the son of defendant 1. Defendant 5 is the plaintiff's son, and defendant 6 is the manager of defendant 1. It is clear from this statement that defendants 1, 3 and 4 are closely related as brothers and son, and defendant 6 is the manager of defendant 1. The plaintiff's suit is one for the dissolution of a partnership alleged to be existing between him and the five defendants and for accounts. There is a farther prayer for a declaration that the document executed by the plaintiff on 3rd February 1936, in favour of defendant 1 is void on the ground of fraud, undue influence and similar grounds. It is alleged that the partnership business was carried on at Calcutta.

2. The suit was instituted on 27th June 1938. The written statement of defendant 1 was filed on 10th August 1938, and the written statements of the other defendants were filed on 7th November 1938. On 22nd August 1938, defendant 1 applied to this Court for a stay of the suit and for security for costs. In fact that application was similar to the present one in all respects except that there was no prayer for an order to revoke the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The other defendants did not join in that application, nor were they served with notice of that application. On 6th December 1938, by consent an order was passed. The plaintiff consented to furnish security. While that application was pending the other defendants were written to by the solicitors of the plaintiff asking them to state their attitude with respect to the application, but no reply was given to this letter. Thirteen days after that consent order, that is on 19th December 1938, the present application has been made by defendant 6, who, as I have said, is the servant of defendant 1. In this application it is worthy of notice that defendant 3, who is the brother of defendant 1, has not been served with notice.

3. On behalf of the petitioner the allegations are briefly as follows : He says that there was no partnership between defendant 1 and the other defendants. He claims that the business belonged to defendant 1 alone and that the plaintiff and the others were servants, who had a share in the profits of the business. His contention is that under the peculiar law prevailing in the Bantva State where the agreement between the parties was entered into and where all the parties reside, the agreement did not constitute a partnership. This agreement is dated 15th December 1934. It is stated that the head office of the business is at Bantva and not at Calcutta and it is pointed out that there is a term in the agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed that all, disputes would be settled at Bantva or Rajkot and that he would not be permitted institute legal proceedings elsewhere. The next important allegation of the petitioner is that all accounts between the plaintiff and defendant I