1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1846 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 906 OF 2008 M/s. Osaka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiffs Versus Abdullah Riyasatali Khan & Ors. ....Defendants Mr. S. C. Naidu a/w. Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Atul G. Damle, Advocate for the Applicants/Defendants. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Damle, learned Counsel for the Defendants and Mr. Naidu with Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by Defendants for revocation of leave granted to the Plaintiffs under clause XII of the Letters Patent on 17th March, 2008. 3. Mr. Damle, learned Counsel for the Defendants, invited my attention to prayer clauses of the suit, Apex Court judgment in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat & Anr.reported in 2001 (4) MH. L. J 469 and clause XII of the Letters Patent, and submitted that the Plaintiffs' suit fall under the category of 2 “suit for land” and as the suit property is situated at Bhiwandi, this Court would have no jurisdiction to try the same. Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, on the contrary also relied upon the above judgment of the Apex Court and submitted that the present suit will not fall in the category of “suit for land”. He further submitted that the cause of action to file the suit has arisen in part within the local limits of ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore, the suit is perfectly maintainable, if filed, by obtaining prior leave under clause XII of Letters Patent. 4. The Apex Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Supra, held that under clause XII of Letters Patent, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction will have power to receive, try and determine : (1) suits for land or other immovable property if such property is situated within the local limits of original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (2) all other cases (a) if the cause of action has arisen wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; (b) if prior leave of the Court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (c) if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within such limits. The Apex Court also referred with approval, the decision of M/s.Moolji Jaitha and Co. Vs. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., AIR (37) 1950 Federal Court 83. The said decision interpreted the expression “suit for land”. The following categories of the suit are held as “suit for land”: (1) suits for the determination of title to land; (2) suits for possession of land; and (3) other suits 3 in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of land. 4. If the prayers of the suit are considered in the light of decision of the Federal Court in M/s.Moolji Jaitha and Co.’s case, then it is clear to my mind that the present suit does not fall in the category of “suit for land”. In paragraph 31 of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have given cause of action to file the suit. In the said para, the Plaintiffs have averred that they have paid an amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- either by way of cheque or cash to the Defendants in Mumbai and therefore, part cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. The details of these payments are given an Exhibit “J” annexed to the plaint. The Apex Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Versus A.P. Agencies, Salem report in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1239 in paragraph 15 observed as follows: “ In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law 4 of contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have (been) performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors”. 5 5. If the above observations are considered in proper perspective alongwith pleading in paragraph 31 of the plaint, then it is clear that the present suit is not a suit for land and it falls in other category. Since cause of action in part arises within local limits of ordinary original jurisdiction of High Court and the Plaintiffs have obtained prior leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent, I find no merit in the chamber summons. The chamber summons is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)