1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.700 OF 2009 State Bank of India .. Plaintiff Versus Kishore Ganpat Kedare .. Defendant Mr.Sangameshwar Delmade i/b. Goenka Law Associates for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th October 2009. P.C.: 1] There cannot be any ex parte decree passed in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as para 11 of the plaint reads as under:- “11. The entire cause of action has arisen in Bombay since the plaintiffs advanced the monies to the defendant in Bombay. The defendant executed documents in respect of the said account, in Bombay. The dues were repayable in Bombay. The defendant resides in Bombay. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of 2 this Suit.” 2] Although in para 11 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant resides in Mumbai from the cause title, it is apparent that the defendant is residing at Badlapur in Thane district. The original documents which are produced with a view to apply for an ex-parte decree, also demonstrate that the defendant borrower is residing at Badlapur in Thane District. Upon a query from the Court as to how despite factual position, the suit is instituted without any leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent, plaintiffs' Advocate was unable to make any statement. It was clarified by me yesterday that no ex parte decree can be passed, once it is noticed from the plaint itself that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. More so, in the absence of any leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. 3] In these circumstances, plaintiff is granted leave to withdraw this suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)