Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited, filed a suit in the Bombay High Court for recovery of Rs. 3,72,87,086/- with interest against DSQ Holding Ltd. and others. The defendants took out Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 seeking revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff took out Chamber Summons No. 139 of 2004 seeking amendment of paragraph 23 of the plaint to add averments regarding jurisdiction. The court considered both summons together, noting that if the court had jurisdiction at the time of filing, the defendants' summons would fail; if not, the plaintiff's amendment would be ineffective. The court examined the plaint averments and found that the suit was for recovery of money lent and advanced, and the loan agreement was executed in Mumbai, which is within the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that it had jurisdiction and dismissed the defendants' summons for revocation of leave. Consequently, the plaintiff's amendment was allowed as it was not necessary to cure any defect. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the plaint as a whole and subsequent amendment cannot confer jurisdiction retrospectively.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Clause 12 Letters Patent - Determination of jurisdiction - The court must examine the plaint averments as a whole to determine if any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. If no part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, leave under Clause 12 cannot be granted. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Jurisdictional Averments - Subsequent amendment cannot confer jurisdiction retrospectively - If the court lacked jurisdiction at the time of filing, an amendment adding jurisdictional facts cannot cure the defect. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as on the date of filing and obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and whether subsequent amendment to the plaint can cure lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 (defendants' summons for revocation of leave) is dismissed. Chamber Summons No. 139 of 2004 (plaintiff's amendment) is allowed.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Clause 12 Letters Patent
- Determination of jurisdiction based on plaint averments
- Amendment of plaint to cure jurisdictional defects
- Revocation of leave for lack of jurisdiction
