Leave to appeal can be revoked.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

While Application No.1763 of 2004 has been filed by the first defendant in the suit, seeking revocation of leave to sue, granted to the plaintiff to institute the present suit, the Application No. 2979 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking leave under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to file a suit against defendants 2 to 4 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. Application No.2980 of 2007 has been taken out by the plaintiff for giving up defendants 2 to 4 as parties to the present suit. Original Application No. 998 of 2006 has been taken out by the plaintiff for an interim injunction restraining the first defendant from disposing of the properties belonging to defendants 2 to 4 pending disposal of the suit.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited, known as M.M.T.C. Limited, which is a Government of India undertaking. The first defendant in the suit is The South Indian Bank Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, Chennai. The second defendant is a partnership firm, to fulfill their commitments, the plaintiff invoked both the Bank Guarantees by a letter dated 21. 2003 and claimed the amounts due from the first defendant bank. But the first defendant bank sent a reply dated 13. 2003 denying the liability to pay on the ground that the claim was lodged alter the expiry date. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above suit C.S.No.317 of 2003, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.43,48,973/- together with interest on the guaranteed amount of Rs.41,50,000/-. Apart from seeking a decree for money as against the first defendant, the plain-tiff also sought a decree against the defendants 2 to 4 for a sum of Rs.45,27,857/-.

3. Since the defendants 2 to 4 were residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff sought a relief as against the defendants 2 to 4 also, the plaintiff obtained leave to sue in A. No. 1672 of 2003.

4. Along with the suit, the plaintiff took out an application in O.A.No.407 of 2003 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the first defendant bank from handing over any securities belonging to the other defendants, which were deposited with the first defendant. On 24. 2003, an interim injunction was granted in the said application. The interim order, the notice in the application as well as the papers were served on the first defendant on 5. 2003 and the first defendant entered appearance through counsel on 16. 2003.

5. Subsequently, the plaintiff took out another application in A.No.5467 of 2003 seeking a direction to the first defendant bank to deposit the amount of Rs.43,48,973/-. Thereafter, the first defendant came up with the application in A.No.1763 of 2004 seeking revocation of the leave granted on 4. 2003 in A.No.1672 of 2003. This application for revocation of leave was filed by the first defendant on 4. 2004.

6. The application for revocation of leave has been taken out by the first defendant bank on the short ground that the entire cause of action for the suit arose only at Coimbatore and that all the defendants were carrying on business only at Coimbatore. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff itself has an office at Nos.167 and 172, DPF Street, Papanaickanpalayam, Coimbatore — 37. The defendants 2 to 4, even as seen from the cause title in the plaint, carry on business at Coimbatore. The entire transaction for the supply of gold was not only entered into between the plaintiffs branch at Coimbatore with the defendants 2 to 4 at Coimbatore, but also the actual act of supply of gold, failure to fulfill commitments etc. took place only at Coimbatore. The first defendant bank has a branch at Raja Street, Coimbatore, and it was that branch of the first defendant bank at Coimbatore, which issued the Bank Guarantees at the instance of the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus in essence, all the parties (including the plaintiff. the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4)