The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 20(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that the residence of one of the defendants is to be considered for territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APP No. 9351/2023

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures.

2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 350/2023 & CM APP No. 9350/2023

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition itself is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

5. The petitioners challenge the order dated 13.12.2022 passed in CS DJ 989/2022 titled ‘Shaily Grover and Ors vs. Montessori Education Society Regd & Ors.’ whereby the leave to institute the suit under Section 20 sub-Section (b) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) was granted to the respondents/plaintiffs.

6. Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire cause of action, even if it is taken to be on the statement contained in the plaint, reflects the fact that the whole issue relates to the elections which were conducted by the respondents/defendants at Ashok Vihar, in the office of the Society.

7. Learned senior counsel also submits that even if the allegations leveled against the defendants no.2 and 3 is taken at its face value, the fact still remains that the same will be relatable to the reliefs as sought by the respondents/plaintiffs in their suit.

8. Learned senior counsel submits that the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens is applicable to all the parties of the suit and not plaintiff alone. Learned senior counsel submits that that cause of action having arisen at Ashok Vihar, in that, the elections to various posts of the office bearers of the petitioner-society; the records are being maintained at the Ashok Vihar office of the Society; and all other relatable documents etc. are available at the Ashok Vihar office. Based on that Mr. Sengh, learned senior counsel submits that even if this Court looks at issue on the point of doctrine of Forum Conveniens, the records and the substantial cause of action having arisen at Ashok Vihar, it would have been in the interest of justice for the suit to have been instituted at Ashok Vihar where the original and the basic cause of action had arisen.

9. Learned senior counsel, while referring to sub-Section (b) of Section 20 of CPC submits that though, not so worded, yet leave to institute a particular suit in a particular Court of competent jurisdiction ought to have been obtained by the respondents/plaintiffs before the suit could be stated to have been duly instituted.

10. Learned senior counsel further submits that admittedly there is no application in that regard nor any such leave was ever obtained by the respondents/plaintiffs.

11. Learned senior counsel attacks the impugned order to submit that in a perfunctory and arbitrary manner the learned Trial Court has dealt with the objections on the question of jurisdiction and arbitrarily granted leave without giving any reasons whatsoever.

12. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 23/1962 decided on 10.04.1968 titled ‘Manoramabai Moreshwar & Ors. vs. Ibrahim Khan Bismilla Khan & Ors’, whereby the learned Single judge had held that a specific leave by way of an application ought to have been filed by the plaintiff, prior to such leave being sought.

13. Learned senior counsel submits that having regard to the fact that no such application nor leave having been sought by the respondents/plaintiffs, the impugned order is violative of the ratio laid down by Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgment.

14. Learned senior counsel also submits that though the Bombay High Court had not referred to the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens, however by inference, the observations contained in para-10 of the judgment would amount to the learned Single Judge having upheld the said doctrine.

15. Learned senior counsel finally submits that it is the indelible right of the petitione