THE MERE FACT THAT A COURT IS SITUATE AT A LONG DISTANCE FROM THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF A PARTY OR THAT MOST OF THE WITNESSES ARE FROM A DIFFERENT LOCATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SUIT HAS BEEN FILED IN THAT COURT IN ORDER TO PUT THE PARTY TO TROUBLE AND HARASSMENT AND TO UNNECESSARY EXPENSE.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff s application under Sections 151 and 0. 22 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure praying that ad interim injunction be issued restraining detendant No. 1 (herein called the defendant ) from proceeding with its money suits filed against the plaintiff and others which suits are stated to be pending in the Court of Shri D. Paul, Second Subordinate Judge, Chinsura, District Hooghly (West Bengal ). In the alternative, the plaintiff prays that the trial of the said suits be stayed till the disposal of the present suit filed by it against defendant for rendition of accounts.

( 2 ). The plaintiff filed the present suit on the allegation that it was appointed to be the sole selling agent by the defendant with effect from 13th April, 1962, to promote the sales of their products in the States of Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kasir and Himachal Pradesh on terms and conditions stipulated in sub-paras (1) to (12) of para 3 of the plaint; that the plaintiff is alleged to have made huge sales to the various parties on behalf of the defendant for which services huge commision, brokerage/special promotion commission and sales incentive as also bonus etc. became due to it from the defendant ; and on the transactions carried out by the plaintiff a large sum of several lacs of rupees would be found due to it from the defendants; and that the defendant always delayed the settlement of the accounts and ultimately with the object of harassing the plaintiff had filed false and frivolous suits, enumerated in 5 of the application, against the plaintiff in the Court of Second Subordinate Judge, Chinsura (West Bengal) in respect of some transactions put through by the plaintiff as Delhi.

( 3 ). The plaintiff contends that the defendant had brought the above suits in the Court at Chinsura despite the fact that their head office and registered office is situated at 14-Netaji Subash Road, Calcutta and that Chinsura is about 40 miles away from Calcutta City. The defendant is alleged to have chosen the Court at Chinsura with mala fide intention in order to harass the plaintiff to deter it from claiming its legitimate dues because the plaintiff will have to face a lot of difficulty in reaching the Court at Chinsura. The plaintiff avers that the stay of suits in the Court at Chinsura is necessary because the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as the witnesses and the evidence pertaining to the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant are easily available in Delhi.

( 4 ). The case of the defendant is that Hasting Mill Ltd. with its registered office at No. 14, Netaji Subash Road, Calcutta, carries on various kinds of business in jute, textiles etc. in the State of West Bengal. The textile business of the company consisting of the manufacture and sale of synthetic and art silk fabrics is carried on under the name and stayle of Shree Ram Silk Mfg. Co. at Konnagar. District Hooghly (West Bengal ). At all material times the sales office of the said business as well as its factory were located at its Mill premises in Konnagar. The defendant opposed the application contending that between 1967 and 1971 it sold and delivered diverse quantities of synthetic and art silk fabrics of various concerns pursuant to the orders procured by the plaintiff at Delhi which were forwarded to and accepted by the defendant at its office at Konnagar. The goods thereafter were despatched by rail or road direct to the purchaser under advice to the plaintiff. As a result of such transactions a total sum exceeding Rs. 30 lacs became due and payable to the defendant; that the plaintiff as del credere agent was independently liable to pay to the defendant the said several sums due from the various buyers if the buyers failed to pay the purchase price. The buyers having failed to pay the price of the goods sold to them suits were filed against the concerns for recovery of the balance price of go