1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.402 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.3391 OF 2005. Jitendr Ghevarchand Sanghvi : Plaintiff. Versus Servali Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd. : Defendants. Mr.Krishnagopal S.Tripathi for the Plaintiff Mr. Vivek Kantawala /by M/s.Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the Defendants in support of the Chamber Summons. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Chamber Summons the Applicants/original Defendants seek revocation of the leave granted under clause XII of the Letters Patent Act vide order dated 27th November 2005. The 2 Plaintiff has filed the above Suit for recovering an amount of Rs.7,62,689=62 which is due to him on account of the interest payable on the purchase price of the goods supplied by him to the Defendants. In the Jurisdiction Clause i.e. Para 9 of the Plaint it has been averred that the Plaintiff' s Bill provides “Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction”. The Plaintiff has annexed at Exhibit B-2 to the Plaint, what is purported to be, a duplicate of the said bill No.854/2003 dated 7/5/03. It is mentioned at the top “Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction”. It is on the basis of the said averment in the Jurisdiction Clause of the Plaint that this Court was pleased to consider the grant of leave under Clause XII to the Plaintiff. 2. In the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons the Defendants have annexed the original copy of the said Bill No.854/2003 dated 7/5/03 received by them. Pertinently the said bill does not bear the condition on the top “Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction”. The revocation of the leave is, therefore, sought principally on the ground that the Plaintiff has misrepresented and in 3 fact played a fraud upon this Court by annexing, what is supposed to be, a duplicate copy of the original bill, when in fact it is another copy prepared by the Plaintiff to sue the Defendants in this Court. 3. On behalf of the Defendants, it is also contended that the purchase order sent by the Defendants, which is annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, contained a condition “Subject to Coimbatore Jurisdiction” and, therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the Defendant that on the aforesaid two grounds viz. that this Court was misrepresented as also on the ground of the said purchase order and the condition contained therein that the leave granted to the Plaintiff be revoked. 4. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it is sought to be contended that the Bill annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit B-2 is a computer print-out of the original bill and, therefore, there was no misrepresentation or fraud played upon this Court as is sought to be contended on behalf of the Defendants. It is further contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that 4 the purchase order was received by the Plaintiff at Mumbai, payment was received at Mumbai, the confirmation of outstanding dues was also given at Mumbai and the notice for payment of interest to the Defendants was also given at Mumbai and therefore this Court has jurisdiction . 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the document i.e the Bill No.854/2003 dated 7/5/03 annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit Exhibit B-2 and the copy of Bill annexed by the Defendant to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber summons, in my view, a case for revocation of leave is made out. 6. It would be significant to note that comparison of the Bill annexed to the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons and the Bill annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit B-2 ex facie demonstrates that the Bill at Exhibit B-2 is not a copy of the original Bill which has been annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. A mere look on the telephone numbers mentioned in the said original Bill, 5 which is annexed to the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons by the Defendant, would show that the said telephone numbers do not have prefix “2”, which is in the Bill annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit B-2. The prefix “2” was added to the telephone numbers in Mumbai much later. The font size contained in two bills is also different. As indicated above, the Bill annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons by the Defendant No.1 does not contain the condition as “Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction”. Obviously, therefore, the Bill annexed to the Plaint is a document which has been prepared for filing the instant suit in this Court. It is not a question as to whether a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court . But the question is, once the parties have subjected themselves to a particular jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of this Court would be ousted. 7. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that the terms and conditions annexed to the purchase order of the Defendants were not sent to the Plaintiff and only the 1st page of the 6 purchase order was sent. Merely because the Defendants have not filed an Affidavit in Rejoinder, it would not lead credence to the case of the Plaintiff. There is also discrepancy as regards the signature appearing on the two bills. But one did not go to the said extent. 8. The learned counsel for the Defendants relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & ors. reported in JT 1993 (6) S.C.331 in support of his submission that a litigant who withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. The ratio laid down in the said Judgment may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. The fact remains that in the original copy of the bill annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, the condition as to “Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction” does not appear, whereas the purchase order of the Defendants clearly states that “Subject to Coimbatore Jurisdiction”. In that view of the matter, the Chamber Summons would 7 have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Plaintiff would be at liberty to present the plaint before the appropriate Court. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]