1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA A. No.2782 of 2011 in C.S. No.210 of 2011 ICFAI ACADEMY Represented by its Chief Law Officer and Authorized Signatory Mr.SV Rao, Having its Registered Office and Corporate office at 52, Nagarjuna Hills Hyderabad 500 082. ... Plaintiff -Versus- 1. Everonn Education Limited, having its registered office at 82, Fourth Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai-600 096. 2. Everonn Business Education Limited Everonn House Plot No.96-99 Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. ... Defendants A. No.2782 of 2011:- Everonn Business Education Limited, Everonn House Plot No.96-99 Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. ... Applicant -Versus- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 1. ICFAL ACADEMY Represented by its Chief Law Officer and Authorized Signatory Mr.SV Rao, No.52, Nagarjuna Hills Hyderabad-500 082. 2. Everonn Education Limited, 82, Fourth Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai-600 096. ... Respondents Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to revoke the leave granted to the first respondent/plaintiff on 22.03.2011 in A. No.1717 of 2011 in the above suit to sue the second defendant. This application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order: This application has been moved by the applicant/second defendant to revoke the leave granted by this Court, permitting the first respondent/plaintiff to file a suit against the second defendant, who is residing out the jurisdiction of this Court. 2.It is the submission of the applicant, that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the first and the second defendants by showing the cause of action, only against the first defendant. 3.The second defendant, who is residing outside the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 jurisdiction of this Court and no cause of action against him was arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court therefore the leave to sue granted by this Court deserves to be revoked. 4.It is also the submission of the applicant/second defendant, that it is for the plaintiff to plead out prima facie show that process that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent reads as under: "12.Original Jurisdiction as to suits: And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature of 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, it 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 the business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that 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 hundred rupees." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant / defendant no.2 contended that once the cause of action to sue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 defendant no.2 has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court nor any cause of action is pleaded against defendant no.2, leave deserves to be revoked, specially when the plaintiff has not placed on record the complete documents in the typeset of papers to disclose the place of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 7. This application is opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff / applicant by contending that MOU between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 was executed at Chennai and the second defendant is also residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit. The leave granted, therefore, calls for no interference. 8. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff / non applicant. There is a specific averment that the MOU between the parties was executed at Chennai. In the application filed to revoke the leave, the applicant / defendant no.2 has not pleaded or shown the place of execution of the MOU to be different from the one pleaded by the plaintiff, therefore, cause of action arose within https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 the jurisdiction of this Court. 9.Furthermore, the applicant / defendant no.2 is also residing within jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, no ground is made out to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff to sue defendant no.2 in this Court. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 23.11.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2012. R.s/29.03.2012 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/