Jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act necessitates that the cause of action must arise within the court's jurisdiction, which was not met in this case.

ORDER

This Application had been filed to grant leave to the applicants/plaintiffs to sue all the respondents/defendants before this Court.

2.Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr.C.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3, 5 to 10.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that since various defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the first and second defendants alone are functioning outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that the cause of action for initiating the Suit arose on 07.12.2024 within the jurisdiction of this Court, it would be necessary to grant leave to sue the respondents/defendants. He would submit that the applicants are members of the first defendant and the circular issued on 05.09.2024 and reiterated by the Grandmaster of the first defendant on 07.12.2024 within the jurisdiction of this Court causes grave prejudice to the applicants. He would submit that the said circular would affect the membership of the applicants with respondents/defendants 2 to 13. He would submit that the Madurai Bench of this High Court had also entertained a Writ Petition filed by the certain of the aggrieved members which itself would show that the Suit is maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, he prays this Court to grant leave as prayed for.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first defendant would submit that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He would submit that the circular was issued by the first defendant at New Delhi and the statement made by the Grandmaster for implementing the said circular was made at Nandambakkam, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, he would submit that the application itself is liable to be rejected.

5. He would further submit that a clever drafting of the plaint cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court. He would further submit that certain of the respondents/defendants had sent mail to the first defendant and a reading of the mail would show that the said defendants are not situated in the address given by the plaintiff. He would further distinguish the jurisdiction under Article 226 and the jurisdiction vested with this Court under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act . He would further submit that the circular that had been issued is in consonance with the bye-laws, Book of Constitution of the first defendant. He would further submit that the applicants being the members of the first defendant are bound by its Constitution. In support of such contention, he had also relied upon various judgments on that aspect. He would further submit that the applicants' residence cannot give rights to a cause of action for them to institute the Suit before this Court. It is only the defendants' address which is more pertinent for a jurisdiction to confer jurisdiction of the Court. He would submit that the defendants 2 to 13 are not necessary parties to the Suit, as they are neither the daughter lodges of the first defendant nor are they bound by the constitution of the first defendant. He would submit that they are all independent Masonic lodges having their own charter and constitution. He would submit that they are neither necessary parties nor proper parties for adjudication of the lis as claimed by the applicants in the Suit and they have been impleaded only to cleverly plead that this Court has a jurisdiction to decide the issue. On the pri