Court Can't Evaluate Evidence While Deciding Application For Revocation Of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has iterated that while considering an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court cannot consider the evidence on record or decide the issue of jurisdiction.Justice R Subramanian ruled that scope of enquiry in an application for revocation of leave is very limited, inasmuch as the Court has to take the allegations in the plaint as true and see whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court.The order stated,"A roving enquiry on the evidence available, the effect of the evidence or the probabilities of the case cannot be conducted while considering the application for revocation of leave...the assertion in the plaint must be assumed to be true for the purpose of determining whether the leave is liable to be revoked on the point of demurrer."It held that once the court receives an application for revocation of leave already granted, the court cannot venture to examine the evidence and decide the question of fact at that stage, instead it must proceed on the assumption that the allegations in plaint are true. "The scope of enquiry in an application for revocation of leave is very limited, inasmuch as the Court has to take the allegations in the pliant as true and see whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court." While dismissing an application for revocation of leave that was granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent (Original Civil Jurisdiction of High Court) in a money suit, Justice R Subramanian pointed out that the law is settled on court's jurisdiction to try civil suits. Under Section 120 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is stated that Sections 17, 19 and 20 of the Code about jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits are inapplicable when the High Court exercises its Original Civil Jurisdiction. A combined reading of Section 120 of CPC and clause 12 of Letters Patent Act indicates that the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction can receive and hear suits even when only a part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, despite none of the defendants residing there or carrying on business within its jurisdiction, the court said in the order. The applicant counsel, Advocate D.Nellaiappan, refuted the respondent's claim that the documents in question were executed in Chennai. The applicants (defendants in the original money suit) argued further that monies were advanced at Thindivanam and documents were executed in Puducherry, so no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court. He also relied upon the judgment in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company (1992) for placing the proposition that the parties by agreement cannot invest jurisdiction in a Court which does not otherwise have jurisdiction. The respondents' counsel, Advocate N. Jyothi, contended that while granting leave or while considering the application for revocation of leave, the Court has to assume that the claims in the plaint are true. Assuming that even a miniscule part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction as stated in the plaint, leave can be granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act, he argued. Hence, according to him, the claim that the agreement was executed at Chennai and the documents of title were deposited with the 1st defendant in his house at Chennai has to be taken at face value. Considering the arguments of both sides, the court opined after referring to Raghavan v. Kalanithi Maran ( 2013): "The question whether the particular document viz., agreement dated 17.10.2011 was executed at Chennai in the residence of the 1 st plaintiff or it was executed at Pondicherry as alleged by the defendants is a question of fact which will have to be decided on evidence." The court recorded in its order that any dispute on the question of fact regarding jurisdiction can be allowed to be raised only in the written statement, whereafter the court can decide the said question based on evidence placed on record, but not before that. Placing reliance on Indian Mineral and Chemicals Co. and others Vs. Deutsche Bank (2004), Secretary of State Vs. Golabrai Paliram (1932) and Isha Distribution House Private Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and Another, the court observed: "In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that except in rare cases, the question of jurisdiction, particularly territorial jurisdiction, which depends on the evidence should be decided only along with the other issues in the suit after the evidence is recorded." On another aspect of the case, the court also stated that once a party has acquiesced in the conduct and participated in further proceedings, he cannot resort to an application...

Court Can't Evaluate Evidence While Deciding Application For Revocation Of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent: Madras High Court

Sebin James

Tags