Plaint not showing any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court.

GOKULAKRISHNAN, J :- This original side appeal filed under Clause 15 of the letters Patent arises out of the order of Shanmukham J. dated 17-12-1982, made in Appln. No. 4651 of 1982, revoking the leave to sue granted in Appln. No. 4340 of 1982.

2. The appellant herein filed the suit in C. S. No. 614 of 1982 on the file of the Original Side of this Court praying for a declaration that the appellant and respondent 1 herein are the winners of the first prize under ticket No. A.891076 of the Royal Bhutan Lottery in respect of the draw held on 2-6-1982, in the 147th draw and also the owner of the amount realised therefrom by the defendants, viz., towards the share of the plaintiff Rs. 2,50,000, standing to the credit of defendant 1 in defendant 2 bank at Oppanakara St, Coimbatore, and also for permanent injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 herein from in any way dealing with the amount of Rs. 2,50,000, standing to the credit of defendant 1 in defendant 2 bank at Oppannkara St, Coimbatore.

3. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the lottery ticket in question and entrusted the same with his wife. On 2-6-1982, it was known that the ticket A.891076 of Royal Bhutan lottery had won the first prize of Rs. 10,00,000. According to the Plaintiff, he and respondent 1 were jointly carrying on trade in selling lottery tickets. On 2-6-1982, respondent 1 came to the house of the plaintiff and took the winning ticket from the plaintiff's wife, while the plaintiff was absent from his house after informing the wife of the plaintiff that the ticket was wanted for verification as to whether the said ticket had won the fist prize or not. Subsequently, there was a police complaint and finally the money was collected and deposited with respondent 2 herein. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the mediation the panchayatdars decided to direct respondent 1 to execute a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 in favour of the plaintiff and settle the dispute subsequently. According to the plaintiff, be has to get half of the prize amount and deducting the sum of Rs. 1,75,000, for which a promissory note has been executed, respondent 1 has to pay the balance of the amount.

4. The first defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of the pleadings. The plaintiff in his Appln. No. 4340 of 1982 obtained leave to sue and filed the suit with the above said prayers. Subsequently, Appln. No. 4651 of 1982 was filed to revoke the leave granted on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and leave to sue granted has to be revoked. The learned single Judge of this Court after going through the decided cases and the facts of the present case, revoked the leave granted by allowing Appln. No. 4651 of 1982. It is as against this order, the present appeal has been filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent.

5. Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that there is an agreement at Madras, between the plaintiff and respondent 1 in respect of the dealing in lottery tickets and as such, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court. Mr. Srinivasan next contended that the money in deposit with respondent 2 is being claimed by the plaintiff and respondent 2 bank was one of the panchayatdars to the dispute between the plaintiff and respondent 1, that the branch of respondent 2 is at Madras and that the suit can be filed at Madras in such circumstances.

6. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Advocate General arguing for the respondents contended that there is absolutely no cause of action for the plaintiff to sue the respondent at Madras and that the convenience of the parties will be better served by filing the suit at Coimbatore where the whole cause of action has arisen.

7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings and other materials on record. In para 1 of the plaint it has been stat