The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper evidence and arguments to determine jurisdictional matters and the construction of agreements, especially when translations are contentious.

JUDGMENT

Derbyshire, C.J. - This is an appeal from a decision of Sen J., given on 6th April 1939 whereby he refused to revoke the leave which had been granted for the institution of this suit under Clause 12, Letters Patent, and further refused to stay the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Ali Mahomed Ebrahim Shakoor against the six defendants: (1) Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, himself, (2) Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, as Manager of Peer Mahomedi Fund, (3) Ahmed Hajee Peermahomed, (4) Abdul Karim Adam, (5) Talyub Ali Mohamed and (6) Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor. The application for revocation of the leave and for stay of the suit was made by Hajee Adam Abdul Shakoor, defendant 6. Previously there had been an application for stay of the proceedings made by Adam Hajee Peermahomed Essack, defendant 1, but by a consent order made in that application (to which the present defendant was not a party) the suit was allowed to proceed on the plaintiff giving security for costs to the extent of Rs. 5000. It was agreed that the contention of the plaintiff that he was a resident of British India was still open to him, and also that it was still open to the defendants to contend that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The present applicant-defendant 6-is described as the manager of defendant 1. The suit itself is for a declaration that the partnership alleged to exist between the plaintiff and the defendants stands dissolved on and from 3rd February 1936, alternatively, for a decree dissolving the partnership. There are further claims for declarations as to the validity and operation ,of a document dated 27th January 1936.

2. The parties, it is agreed, are all natives of the State of Bantva. The plaintiff alleges that a partnership existed for many years amongst the parties and that it was renewed from time to time. The amount of the partnership assets is very large amounting to many lacs of rupees. The plaintiff alleges that the last agreement for partnership was entered into between the parties on 15th December 1934, the term of the partnership beginning on 12th July 1935, and lasting for some 11 to 15 months from that date. The plaintiff alleges that after the last term of the partnership expired the accounts were not adjusted, that all the account books were in the possession of the defendants other than defendant 5, and that defendant 1 refused to allow inspection of the books and accounts, or to make up or adjust the accounts. The plaintiff also alleges that on or about 3rd February 1936, defendant 1 by false and fraudulent representation and undue influence and coercion caused the plaintiff to sign a document dated 27th January 1936 and have the same registered. The effect of that document was to settle the amount of money the plaintiff was entitled to under the agreement. It is in respect of the operation of that agreement, and the settlement of the dispute under it mentioned, that these proceedings have been brought.

3. The plaintiff alleges that the partnership business was carried on in Calcutta and other places in India and that the head office of the partnership firm was situate in Calcutta. The plaintiff also alleges that all the parties at all material times have been carrying on business in Calcutta, and that the cause of action arose partly in Calcutta and partly elsewhere. Leave was granted by Panckridge J., under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to commence this suit in this Court. The plaint was filed on 25th June 1938. The written statement of defendant 1 was filed on 10th August 1938, and the written statements of the other defendants including defendant 6, on 7th November 1938.

4. Defendant 6 - the present appellant - contends in para. 13 of his written statement that by the agreement of 15th December, 1934 it was expressly provided that the parties thereto would have no right to institute any legal proceedings in respect of the said business at any other place than Bantva or Rajkot, and that the plai