Leave, can be refused only on the ground of pleading otherwise by the defendant.

Mishra, J.

This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent is directed against the Application No.1627 of 1989 refusing leave under Clause 12 thereof to sue in this Court, defendants for recovery in a sum of Rs.3,43,726-30. The plaintiff/appellant has alleged most part of the cause of action for the suit has arisen within the city of Madras. defendants, however, have said that the entire cause of action has arisen only at Cochin not in Madras. Learned single Judge, Srinivasan, in his impugned judgment has said;

"In my opinion, it is not necessary to consider whether any part of the cause of action arisen within the City of Madras. I propose to decide the matter on the assumption that part of the cause of action has arisen within City of Madras."

2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which speaks about the original jurisdiction as to runs as follows: "And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have either wholly, or, in case the leave of the court shall have been first obtained, in part, the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed one hundred rupees." The words "determine suits of every description ........., if the cause of action shall arisen or, in case the leave of the court shall have been first obtained, in part, within local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction", clearly establish the right of a litigant institute a suit on the Original Side of this Court if the cause of action would have wholly within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the court. The leave the court is required only in a case in which the cause of action would have arisen within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction. It is thus not possible to the case of a litigant who decided to file the suit on the Original Side of the court on the that most part of the cause of action had arisen within the city of Madras, only on the ground that the defendant had pleaded otherwise and alleged that no part of the cause of action arisen in Madras but had arisen at Cochin. In K.Murugesan v. Seethalakshmi, reported (1992)1 L.W. 277, we had the occasion to examine the scope of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to find out when this Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Clause of the Letters Patent. In our Judgment in the said case we have noticed. "The chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay besides this Court, are having the original jurisdiction as found in Clause 12 of our Letters Patent. They have to find before a suit entertained on Original Side that it satisfied the requirements, in the case of suit for land other immovable property, that the land or other immovable property is situated within local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the court, and in all other cases whether cause of action wholly arises within the local limits of extraordinary original jurisdiction, or case the leave of the court is asked for, whether the cause of action arises in part within local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the court or not. Besides this, there would be no difficulty in entertaining a suit under Clause 12, if the defendant, at the time commencement of the suit, dwelt or carried on business or personally worked for gain within the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The court ’