A court has jurisdiction to try a suit against a non-resident or foreigner only if the cause of action against them arose wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

( 1 ) BY this order IA No. 2334/98 under Section 20 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) is being disposed of.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed the present suit for recovery of Pound Sterling 1,59,127. 79 (= Rs. 1,03,78,341. 46. Plaintiff No. 1 is widow and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are two minor children of deceased K. Rajan Pillai (for short rajan Pillai ). It is alleged that in January/february, 1995 deceased Rajan Pillai and defendant No. 2 who is Editor-in- Chief and Managing Director of defendant No. 1 had negotiations for incorporating a new Company to take over the London office franchise of "the Asian Age" newspaper published on behalf of defendant No. 1; Rajan Pillai was to invest certain amount and in pursuance thereof he vide letter dated 1. 3. 1995 (sent from Singapore) had transferred from his bank account Pound Sterling 1,25,000 in the bank account of defendant No. 3 with Barclays Bank Plc. London and similarly another sum of Pound Sterling 9924. 55 was remitted to defendant No. 4 in his account with Midland Bank Plc. London by means of a cheque on 24. 3. 1995. It appears that the matter did not proceed further as Rajan Pillai died in the meantime on 7. 7. 95. Amounts having not been paid inspite of several letters, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for its recovery with interest impleading, (1) Media Asia Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi; (2) MJ. Akbar, Editor-in-Chief of The Asian Age, New Delhi; (3) Mr. Vijay Sharma working for and on behalf of The Asian Age in Middlesex, U. K. ; and (4) Mercury Communication Ltd. of UK. Media Asia Europe Ltd. of London impleaded as defendant No. 5 has been given up on April 17,1998. As defendants No. 3 and 4 are neither residing nor carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has sought leave of the Court under Section 20 (b) of the Code to sue them here in this suit.

( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff. He has contended that defendants No. 3 and 4 though not necessary parties but their presence is required for more effective and complete decision of the suit and as such they are being impleaded. He has further contended that as the controversy involved has arisen out of the same act or transaction defendants No. 3 and 4 could be impleaded as provided under Order I, Rules 3 to 7 of the Code and as defendants No. 1 arid 2 carry on business and also defendant No. 2 resides here, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit and in these circumstances grant of leave to sue defendants No. 3 and 4 here would be proper exercise of discretion. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1963 SC, 786, Bank of India v. Mis. Mehta Brothers and Ors. , AIR 1984 Delhi, 18 and Suresh Narain Sinha v. Akhauri Balbhadra Prasad and Others, AIR 1957 Pat 256.

( 4 ) THE Court gets jurisdiction under Section 20 if, (1) the defendant resides or carries on business or works for gain within the local limits of its jurisdiction, or (2) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises within such local limits. If there are more defendants than one, some of whom reside or carry on business outside its jurisdiction then such party can be sued in that Court with the leave of the Court as required under clause (b) of Section 20.

( 5 ) THE principle behind the provision of Clauses (a) and (b) of this Section 20 is that the suit be instituted at a place where the defendant be able to defend the suit without undue trouble Union of India and Anr. v. Sh. Ladulal Jain, AIR 1963 SC 1681. In Mis. Dalsukh Nathmal Firm Kamptee v. Motilal Balchand Parwar and Ors. , AIR 1938 Nagpur, 262 it was held that such leave cannot be given arbitrarily and even when the defendants who reside outside jurisdiction do not appear the Court is "bound to consider their position before granting leave. This was followed in Bank of India v. M/s, Mehta Brothers and Ors. , AIR 1984 Delhi 18.

( 6 ) IN Suresh Narain Sinha s case (supra) plaintiff had deposited some amounts wi