Suit cannot be entertained.

O.A.No.123 of 1995 is an application for injunction in which the applicant has stated that the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the applicants possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the respondents who have no manner of right whatsoever in respect of the properties and who are not in possession of the properties, are attempting to commit trespass into the suit properties and therefore, interim injunction has to be granted.

2. Interim injunction was granted when this application was moved on 2. 1995 for a period of four weeks. The said order was subsequently modified to the effect that status quo as on 22. 1995 has to be maintained. The respondents have filed Appln. No.1071 of 1995 for vacating the ex parte order of injunction and Appln. No.1072 of 1995 for interim suspension of the ex parte order of injunction.

3. In the above applications which have been in the form of a counter-affidavit to O.A. No.123 of 1995 apart from stating their case that the respondents have also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs Mrs.Chitra Sampath has argued that since the defendants have taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable, this Court may give a finding with regard to the above contention of the respondents since it goes to the root of the case and she may be permitted to argue on the question of making the interim injunction absolute at a later date after the finding is given by this Court on the question of maintainability of the suit. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable in this Court on the ground that the suit property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and as per third part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the suit is maintainable in this Court, on account of the fact that all the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. This question of maintainability of the suit is therefore taken as a preliminary point.

4. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit property is a land of an extent of 4.65 acres .in S.Nos.19/2 to 19/8 within Alandur Municipal Limits, Saidapet taluk. The suit properties are therefore situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is not in dispute. As per the address for service of the defendants in the plaint, all of them are residing within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is also not in dispute.

5. Clause 12 of the Letter patent is as follows:

“12. Original jurisdiction as to suits: And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the court shall have been first obtained, in part, within 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 original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed one hundred rupees.”

A reading of it would show that there are three parts in this clause. The first part relates to suits for land or other immovable property. The second part relates to suits in which the cause of action had arisen either wholly or partly within the jurisdiction of this Court. The third part relates to suits in