Bombay High Court
502 Shuchi Heights vs Rampyari W on 11 October, 2013
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
.. 1 .. NMS-1060/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1060 OF 2012
IN
SUIT NO.1423 OF 2011
Shyam Balkishan Chandak, )
aged about 54 years, )
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )
Occupation: Business, residing at )
1502 Shuchi Heights, Film City Road, )
Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097 ) ... Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Rampyari Wd/o Balkishan Chandak )
Aged about 80 years, )
Indian Inhabitant of Rajsthan, )
Occupation : Housewife, )
Residing at Out of Jasusar Gate, )
Behind Basalpur House, Bikaner, )
Rajasthan 334 005 )
2. Omprakash Balkishan Chandak )
Aged about 58 years, )
Indian Inhabitant of Rajasthan. )
Occupation : Agriculturist, )
Residing at Out of Jasusar Gate, )
Behind Basalpur House, Bikaner, )
Rajasthan 334 005 )
3. Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak )
aged about 56 years, )
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )
Occupation: Business, residing at )
1501 Shuchi Heights, Film City Road, )
Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097. )
4. Vijay Balkishan Chandak )
Asmita 1/16
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:45 :::
.. 2 .. NMS-1060/12
aged about 43 years, )
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )
Occupation: Business, residing at )
1801, 1802 Shuchi Heights, Film City Road, )
Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097.. )
5. Sushila Wd/o late Jugalkishore Kothari )
Aged about 62 years, )
Indian Inhabitant, Occupation : Housewife. )
Residing at 10/337, K-Kothari Sadan, )
Kagwade Mala, Ichalkaranji, )
Kolhapur, Maharashtra State. )
6. Pushpa Devratan Singhi )
Aged about 60 years, Indian Inhabitant
ig )
of Mumbai, Occupation : House wife, )
Residing at 2/C/103, Green Meadows, )
Lokhandwala Complex, Kandivali (East), )
Mumbai 400 101. )
7. Seeta Gaurishankar Sarda, )
Aged about 47 years, Indian Inhabitant, )
of Rajasthan, Occupation : Housewife, )
Residing at Sardaka Chouk, Deshnok, )
Dikaner, Rajasthan. ) ... Defendants.
Ramprakash Chandak, applicant/Defendant No.3 in person.
Mr P.M.Shah a/w Dharmesh Jain and M. Tanna for the plaintiff.
CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : September 25, 2013.
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : October 11, 2013.
JUDGMENT :
By this notice of motion, defendant No.3 seeks dismissal of suit on the
ground that leave under Clause-XII of Letters Patent has not been taken by the
plaintiff before filing of the present suit on 20th December 2010.
Asmita 2/16
.. 3 .. NMS-1060/12
2. Defendant No.3 has also filed additional affidavit on 22 nd August 2013
in which defendant No.3 seeks dismissal of suit and for return of plaint on the
ground that leave under clause-XII of the Letters paternt obtained by the plaintiff
is improper and untenable and also on the ground that the same was without
mentioning any specific cause of action either at Mumbai or in Rajasthan.
Though no application for amendment of the notice of motion was filed by
defendant No.3, I have heard both the parties also on the issue whether leave
was property obtained or not after lodging the plaint and whether suit should be
dismissed on that ground. Some of the admitted facts which are relevant for the
purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under.
(a) On 21st December 2010, plaint was lodged vide lodging number
(3651 of 2010). In para 91 and 94 of the plaint, it is stated by the
plaintiff that defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6 reside in Mumbai. Defendant
Nos.1, 2 and 7 reside in Rajashthan, defendant No.5 resides in
Ichalkaranji Kolhapur. The properties and the companies described in
Schedule I & II are situated in Mumbai. Some of the properties and
companies are situated in Ratnagiri, Silvasa and Rajsthan. Part of
cause of action has arisen out of jurisdiction of this Court. By granting
leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent, this Court will have
jurisdiction to entertain and try the about suit. This suit is for
declaration that the properties described in the Schedule I i.e. Exhibit-
B to the plaint are joint family properties and plaintiff is entitled to
1/8th share in the joint family properties and seeks division by meets
Asmita 3/16
.. 4 .. NMS-1060/12
and bounds.
(b) Office of this Court raised nine objections on 4 th January 2011.
One of the objection was that leave under Clause-XII was not
obtained. Plaintiff filed petition (981/10) under Clause-XII of Letters
Patent on 23 February 2010. This Court granted leave under Clause-
XII of the Letters Patent on 25th February 2011 in that petition
(981/10). On 21st June 2011, Prothonotary & Senior Master passed
an order for filing of the petitition. Plaint was thus filed and admitted
on 21st June 2011. On perusal of notice of motion No.1060/2012
filed by the third defendant, it is clear that though papers and
proceedings in the suit were served upon him on 22 nd July 2011, on
10th April 2012, in this motion, it is alleged that this Court is not
empowered to entertain and try this suit in absence of leave having
been taken since the present suit was filed on 20 th December 2010.
The third defendant applied for dismissal of suit on the ground that
leave not having been obtained by the plaintiff under Clause-XII of the
Letters Patent before filing of the present suit. It is submitted in the
affidavit in support of motion that at this stage, such leave could not
be taken and therefore suit ought to be dismissed. It is also stated
that not only some of the properties in respect of which reliefs are
claimed, but also some of the defendants who are residing outside the
jurisdiction of this Court. In para 6 of the said affidavit in support, it
is stated that it was incumbent on the plaintiff in view of Clause-XII of
Letters Patent to have sought leave of this Court to file present suit in
this Court more so when some of the defendants are also residing
outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
Asmita 4/16
.. 5 .. NMS-1060/12
4. Without going into the issue whether third defendant could be
allowed to argue as to whether leave obtained by the plaintiff could have been
obtained after lodging the plaint or not, since notice of motion is not amended,
since I have permitted both the parties to address this Court on that issue raised
by the third defendant across the bar who appeared in person, same is dealt with
in this order.
5. It is submitted by the third defendant that after lodging of the plaint,
the plaintiff could not have applied for leave under Clause-XII of the Letters
Patent. In view of the fact that part of cause of action had arisen out side
Mumbai, no leave could have been granted by this Court after lodging of the
plaint on 23rd February 2010 and thus, suit is bound to be dismissed and/or
plaint is liable to be returned to the plaintiff for presenting before the appropriate
Court. Defendant No.3 placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this
Court in case of Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd., delivered on
17th March 2009 in Appeal No.215 of 2008. Reliance is placed on paras 29, 30
and 31 of the said Judgment in support of his submission that petition for leave
under Clause-XII ought to have been filed before lodging of the plaint.
6. Mr P. M. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff on the other
hand invited my attention to the fact that plaint was lodged on 20 th December
Asmita 5/16
.. 6 .. NMS-1060/12
2010. It was averred by the plaintiff in the plaint and in particular paragraphs 91
and 94 which part of cause of action had arisen out side the jurisdiction of this
Court and within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also stated in the said
paragraph that this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit by
granting leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent. Learned counsel submits
that one of the objections raised by the office was that leave under Clause-XII
was not obtained. The plaintiff had already filed petition (981/10) in this Court
interalia praying for leave under Clause-XII. The said petition under Clause-XII
of the Letters Patent was checked by the office of this Court on 7 th January 2011
and was placed before the Chamber Judge of this Court on 23 rd February 2011
when leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent came to be granted in favour of
the plaintiff. On perusal of the said petitition (981/10), it is clear that said
petition was filed on 22nd December 2010 in this court. Learned counsel submits
that upon granting leave under Clause-XII by this Court on 23 rd February 2011,
Prothonotary & Senior Master passed an order for filing of suit on 21 st June 2011
after all the other objections were removed by the plaintiff. On 13 th June 2011,
Prothonotary & Senior Master passed an order directing the office to accept court
fees.
7. Mr Shah, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this
Court in case of Union Bank of India Vs. Sunpac corporation & Ors., reported
in AIR 1986 Bom. 353 delivered by the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 3 to 6
Asmita 6/16
.. 7 .. NMS-1060/12
of the said Judgment which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue
read thus :
" 3. As per the present practice the plaint is presented to the Prothonotary & Senior
Master of this Court who is the officer appointed for the acceptance of the plaint as per
O. IX, R. 1, of the Civil, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Then follows the next
stage mentioned in R. 2 of the said Order, namely, the entry of the particulars of the
suit in the register of suits and their seriatim numbering according to the order in
which the plaints are admitted. O.V.R. 1 then states that it is only when the suit has
been duly admitted that the summons is to be issued to the defendant or defendants as
the case may be. This is also clear from the provisions of O. VII, R. 9.
4. The Code itself therefore envisages two stages - first of the presentation of
the plaint and the next of the admission of the plaint. The suit is not admitted to the
register of the suits and a number given to it merely on the presentation of the plaint.
After the presentation the plaint is scrutinized. If there are any defects in the same, the
plaintiff is required to remove them. The removal of defects is a matter or procedure. It
is only after the defects are removed that it becomes eligible for an entry and a number
in the register of suits. One of the defects can be the absence of leave of the Court to
institute the suit where it is necessary including leave under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent.
So long therefore as the plaint is not admitted and entered in the register of suits all
defects including that of the absence of leave under the said clause can be removed
without returning the plaint. There is no question of returning the plaint. There is no
question of returning the plaint which si not admitted. It simply remains under
objection till it is admitted.
5. It is the confusion between the two stages viz. of the presentation of the
plaint and of its admission to the register of suits after the removal of the defects if any
which is responsible for the faulty procedure adopted by the office. In some cases this
procedure may affect the period of limitations which under the Limitation Act runs from
the date of the presentation of the plaint and not from the date of its admission. A
reference in this behalf can usefully be made to MANU/MH/0112/1933 :
AIR1934Bom91 Ramgopal Chunilal v. Ramsarup Baldevdas.
6. Hence I direct the office not to return the plaint for want of leave under Cl.
12 of the Letters Patent but only require the plaintiff to obtain the leave and admit it to
the register when the leave is obtained. Order accordingly.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff also placed reliance on the
Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Caribjet Inc. Vs. Air India
Limited., reported in 2005(3) Bom CR 94 and in particular paragraphs 10 and
Asmita 7/16
.. 8 .. NMS-1060/12
11 which read thus :
10.In Devidatt's case the question to be considered by the Court was whether leave
under Clause 12 was condition precedent and the same should be obtained prior to suit.
The question in the present case was, however, whether the plaint as lodged on 20th
July, 2001 can be said to be improper presentation in absence of leave under Clause 12
of the Letters Patent obtained from this Court. In the present case admittedly, leave
under Clause 12 has been granted on 8th September, 2001. It is not in dispute that the
suit came to be numbered thereafter on 13th September, 2001. The question, therefore,
is whether even lodging/filing/presentation of the plaint before the Authorised Officer of
this Court is impermissible. This issue directly fell for consideration in Ramgopal
Chunilal v. Ramsarup Balevdas . The same Judges constituted the Division Bench in this
case which decided Devidatt's case on which reliance was placed by Mr. Tulzapurkar.
The Chief Justice observed thus:
".....Now, as is frequently done by parties, the plaintiffs in this case started their
suit at the last possible moment, and on May 25, 1932, the plaint was handed
to an officer in the Prothonotary's office. In Section 3 of the Indian Limitation
Act it is provided that 'every suit instituted after the period of limitation
prescribed therefore by the first schedule shall be dismissed, although limitation
has not been set up as a defence'. Then, in explanation it is provided that "a suit
is instituted, in ordinary cases, when the plaint is presented to the proper
officer." Under Order IV, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is provided
that "every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaintiff to the Court or such
officer as it appoints in this behalf." Rule 2 of that Order provides that "the
Court shall cause the particulars of every suit to be entered in a book to be kept
for the purpose and called the register of civil suits. Such entries shall be
numbered in every year according to the order in which the plaints are
admitted." Now in this case the plaint shows on its face that leave to sue is
required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The appellant's contention is
that in such a case the plaint cannot be presented except to a judge, who is the
only person who can give leave to sue under the Letters Patent and that the
presentation of the plaint to the proper officer in the Prothonotary's office does
not institute the suit where leave to sue is required under Clause 12. It is quite
clear under our Rules and practice that the proper officer to receive the plaint is
the Prothonotary, or somebody in his office to whom the duty is delegated by
him. The only question is whether that rule can apply to a case to which Clause
12 of the Letters Patent is applicable. It is settled law that giving of leave under
Clause 12 is a judicial act which cannot be delegated by the Court to the
Prothonotary or any other officer, and the clause provides in effect that until
leave is granted the Court shall not receive, try or determine the suit. But, I
think, that the argument of the appellant really involves a confusion between
"presentation of the plaint" and "admission or receipt of the suit". To my mind,
the plaint, even where leave is required, is presented when it is handed over by
the plaintiff or his agent to the proper officer in the Prothonotary's office. If
leave is required, the plaint must be submitted to the Chamber Judge and leave
obtained from him under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. When that leave is
Asmita 8/16
.. 9 .. NMS-1060/12
obtained the officer in the Prothonotary's office must see that the plaint is in
order and admit it under Order IV, Rule 2 and he cannot admit the plaint until
the leave of the judge has been obtained. But, to my mind, the obtaining of the
leave of the Judge and the admission of the plaint does not affect in any way the
presentation of the plaint for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act. That
being so, I think that the decision of the learned Judge is right and this suit was
instituted within the period of limitation, viz. on May 25, 1932, and the
plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favour."
11. In our opinion, the legal position has been correctly set out by P. B.
Sawant, J. (as he then was) in Union Bank of India v. Sunpack Corporation and Ors.,
as follows : As per the existing practice the plaint is presented to the Prothonotary and
Sr. Master of this Court who is the officer appointed for the acceptance of the plaint as
per Order IX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then follows the next stage
mentioned in Rule 2 of the said Order, namely, the entry of the particulars of the suit in
the register of suits and their seriatim numbering according to the order in which the
plaints are admitted. Order V, Rule 1 then states that it is only when the suit has been
duly admitted that the summons is to be issued to the defendant or defendants as the
case may be. This is also clear from the provisions of Order VII, Rule 9. The Code itself,
therefore, envisages two stages - first, of the presentation of the plaint, and the next, of
the admission of the plaint. The suit is not admitted to the register of suits and number
is given to it, merely on the presentation of the plaint. After the presentation, the plaint
is scrutinized. If there are any defects in the same, the plaintiff is required to remove
them. The removal of defects is a matter of procedure. It is only after the defects are
removed that it becomes eligible for an entry and a number, in the register of suits. One
of the defects can be the absence of leave of the Court to institute the suit where it is
necessary, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. So long, therefore, as
the plaint is not admitted and entered in the register of suits, all defects including that
of the absence of leave under the said clause, can be removed without returning the
plaint. It was pointed out that it is the confusion between the two stages, namely
presentation of the plaint and of its admission to the register of suits after the removal
of the defects, if any, which is responsible for the faulty procedure adopted by the office.
Sawant J. directed the office not to return the plaint for want of leave under Clause 12
of the Letters Patent but only require the plaintiff to obtain the leave and admit it to the
register when leave is obtained. The office followed and implemented the directions of
Sawant J. However, it appears that after the decision of Suresh J. in Rhoda Mehta's case
(supra) which has taken a contrary view, the office again changed the practice.
Incidentally, neither in Rhoda Mehta's case nor in the other decisions rendered by the
learned single Judge the decision of Divisional Bench in Ramgopal Chunilal's case was
noted. Those decisions are clearly per incuriam. We are informed that following an
unreported decision of Kochar J. dated 11th March, 1977 in Nat Steel Equipment Pvt.
Ltd. v. Bangalore Heart Hospital and Research Centre (Summary Suit (Ld) No. 213 of
1999) the old practice of not returning the plaint for want of leave has been restored by
the office. In the circumstances, the fact that the suit was accepted by the authorised
officer of this Court prior to obtaining leave under Clause 12 will make no difference
inasmuch as it is only upon numbering of the suit the suit can be said to have been
"accepted" by this Court. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the
plaint as lodged on 20th July, 2001 was improper presentation. In the present case,
Asmita 9/16
.. 10 .. NMS-1060/12
admittedly, leave under Clause 12 was granted on 8th September, 2001 and only
thereafter the suit came to be numbered on 13th September, 2001. There is thus no
reason to interfere with the order granting leave under Clause 12. Appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in this case leave was
obtained before the plaint was admitted under Rule-47 of Bombay High Court
(Original Side) Rules. It is submitted that leave under Clause-XII of the Letters
Patent could be obtained by the plaintiff before plaint was admitted under Rule-
47 of High Court (Original Side) Rules. It is submitted that on this Court
granting leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent in veiw of part of cause of
action having arisen at Mumbai and part of action having arisen outside Mumbai,
this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit. It is submitted that in
paragraphs 91 and 94 of the plaint, plaintiff has disclosed which part of action
had arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and which part of action had
arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mr Shah distinguished the
Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
10. On perusal of record, it is clear that plaintiff has averred in the plaint
that part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court and part of cause of action had arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court and on this Court granting leave under Clause-XII of Letters Patent,
this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. Record also
Asmita 10/16
.. 11 .. NMS-1060/12
indicates that application for leave under Clause-XII was already filed by the
petititioner in this Court on 22nd December 2010 which was checked by the office
of this Court on 7th January 2011. Office of this Court had also raised querry
about leave under Clause-XII not having been obtained by the plaintiff. On 23 rd
February 2011, this Court granted leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent.
Record also indicates that the Prothonotary & Senior Master made an
endorsement of filing this plaint on 21 st June 2011. Prothonotary & Senior
Master also made following endorsement :
" Admitted this 21st day of June 2011
Written Statement
Sd/-
Prothonotary and Senior Master,
21-6-2011 "
11. On perusal of this endorsement on the plaint, it is clear that leave was
already obtained by the plaintiff before the admission of plaint which was on 21 st
June 2011 under Rule-47 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.
Notice of motion filed by the third defendant which itself proceeds on the
premise that plaintiff ought to have obtained leave in view of part of cause of
action having arisen out side the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in view of
leave already having been obtained by the plaintiff before filing of this notice of
motion and before the plaint was admitted, notice of motion is thoroughly
Asmita 11/16
.. 12 .. NMS-1060/12
misconceived and is rejected.
12. Since I have heard both the parties and in view of the additional
prayer sought by the third defendant in additional affidavit, I am also deciding
the issue whether leave could be obtained by the plaintiff before the plaint was
admitted under Rule 47 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.
Rule 45 and 47 of the BombayHigh Court (Original Side) Rules are
extracted as follows :
45. Plaint to be lodged before presentation: - A plaint in which leave of
the Court is to be applied for shall, except in cases of special urgency, be lodged
for examination with the officer attending on the Judge in Chambers before
4.15 p.m. on the day previous to its being presented to the Judge and the
plaintiff or his Advocate on record shall attend before the Judge at the time of
presentation. All other plaints shall be lodged with such officer as the
Prothonotary and Senior Master may direct.
47. Endorsement on admission :- When a plaint is admitted in words
"Admitted this day" shall be endorsed thereon and signed by the Prothonotary
and Senior Master or by one of his assistants, the words "written statement"
being added when such statement is required.
13. Learned Single Judge in case of Union Bank (supra) has considered
the provisions of Order 4 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 5 Rules 1, 7 and 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. It is held that suit is not admitted to the register of the suits
Asmita 12/16
.. 13 .. NMS-1060/12
and no number is given to it merely on the presentation of the plaint. After the
presentation, the plaint is scrutinized and if there are any defects which are
required to be removed, it is matter of procedure and it is only after the defects
are removed, it becomes eligible for an entry and a number, in the register of the
suits. One of the defects can be the absence of leave of the Court to institute the
suit where is is necessary including leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent.
It is held that so long the plaint is not admitted and entered in the register of
suits, all defects including that of the absence of leave under the said clause can
be removed without returning the plaint. There is no question of returning the
plaint which is not admitted.
14. On perusal of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of
Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is clear that the Division Bench has approved the
view of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Union Bank of India
(supra) and has held that the fact that the plaint was accepted by the authorised
officer of this Court prior to admission, it will make no difference in asmuch as it
is only upon numbering in the register of suits, the suit can be said to have been
'accepted' by this Court. In the said matter, leave under Clause-XII was granted
on 4th September 2001. Plaint was lodged on 20th May 2001. Suit was numbered
on 13th September 2001. After considering these facts, Division Bench of this
Asmita 13/16
.. 14 .. NMS-1060/12
Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order graining leave
under Clause-XII and dismissed the said appeal. In my view, the said Judgment
of Division Bench of this Court which has approved the Judgment of learned
Single Judge delivered in case of Union Bank of India (supra) squarely applies
to the facts of this case. Even in this case, leave was granted after lodging of
plaint and before the same was admitted and numbered and thus there is no
reason to revoke the order passed by learned Chamber Judge granting leave
under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent.
15. In so far as reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this court in
case of Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the third defendant is
concerned, on perusal of the facts before this Court in the said matter, it is clear
that the plaint was submitted on 29 th September 2004 and was admitted on 10 th
October 2004. Application for leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent was
not filed by the plaintiff. When the defendant raised an objection to the
jurisdiction of this Court by filing notice of motion, in reply to the said notice of
motion, plaintiff stated that he seeks to apply for leave under Clause-XII and filed
application on 27th March 2006. Learned Chamber Judge of this Court
accordingly rejected such application of leave which was filed after plaint having
been admitted. With these facts under consideration, Division Bench of this
Asmita 14/16
.. 15 .. NMS-1060/12
Court held that leave under Clause-XII could not be granted by the Court post
facto after admission of the plaint under Rule 47 of the Bombay High Court
(Original Side) Rules. Division Bench of this Court in the said Judgment did not
take a view different than the view already taken by learned single Judge of this
Court in case of Union Bank of India (supra) and by the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Caribjet Inc. (supra). In my view, the said Judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in case of Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), does not assist the
third defendant but assists the plaintiff.
16. On perusal of Rules 45 and 47 of Bombay High Court (Original Side)
Rules, it is clear that plaint has to be lodged for examination with the officer of
this Court on the day previous to the day being presented to the Judge except in
case of special urgency. All other plaints shall be lodged as the Prothonotary &
Senior Master may direct under Rule 47 which provides that when the plaint is
admitted, "Admitted this day" shall be endorsed thereon and signed by the
Prothonotary & Senior Master or by one of his Assistant. The words " Written
Statement " being added below the said statement is required. On perusal of the
plaint, it is noticed that such endorsement " Admitted this 21st day of June
2011 " is made by the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 21-6-2011 which is
Asmita 15/16
.. 16 .. NMS-1060/12
much after the Chamber Judge of this Court granted leave under Clause-XII of
the Letters Patent in favour of the plaintiff. In my view, there is difference
between lodgment of plaint and admission of plaint and are two separate steps.
In my view, leave under Clause-XII can be granted before admission of plaint.
17. Since admittedly part of cause of action had arisen out side Greater
Mumbai and part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court, plaintiff has obtained leave under Clause-XII properly and upon
granting such leave by this Court, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and
dispose of this suit. There is no infirmity in the order passed by this Court
granting leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent after lodging of plaint and
before the plaint is admitted under Rule 47 of the Bombay High Court (Original
Side) Rules. In my view, there is no merit in any of the submissions made by the
third defendant. I therefore pass the following order.
18. Notice of motion is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( R. D. Dhanuka, J.)
Asmita 16/16
