Assignment forms part of cause of action for Clause 12 jurisdiction, and leave was not revoked on convenience grounds.

In a suit by an assignee, the assignment itself was treated as part of the cause of action because it is a necessary fact the plaintiff must prove to establish title and obtain relief. On that basis, an assignment executed in Calcutta was held to support jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Court also held that leave already granted under Clause 12 should not be revoked merely on allegations of inconvenience, mala fides, or balance of convenience where the assignment appeared bona fide, no decisive prejudice was shown, and revocation would create a serious limitation risk.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a suit by an assignee, the assignment forms part of the cause of action so as to sustain jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. (ii) Whether leave already granted under Clause 12 should be revoked on the ground of balance of convenience, alleged mala fides, or inconvenience to the defendants.

Issue (i): Whether, in a suit by an assignee, the assignment forms part of the cause of action so as to sustain jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: The expression "cause of action" for jurisdictional purposes was treated as including every fact necessary to be proved for the plaintiff to succeed. In a suit by an assignee, the fact of assignment is itself a necessary element of the plaintiff's title and must be proved before relief can be granted. On that footing, assignment is not merely evidentiary but forms an essential part of the cause of action. The Court therefore treated the assignment executed in Calcutta as a material jurisdictional fact.

Conclusion: The assignment was part of the cause of action and a part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether leave already granted under Clause 12 should be revoked on the ground of balance of convenience, alleged mala fides, or inconvenience to the defendants.

Analysis: An application to revoke leave under Clause 12 lies and must ordinarily be made promptly. Where the matter turns on difficult questions or no part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, revocation may follow. But where only a part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, the Court may exercise discretion by considering all relevant circumstances, including convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, the bona fides of the assignment, delay, and the risk of injustice. On the facts, the alleged collusion was not established, the assignment appeared bona fide and for value, the balance of convenience was not clearly in favour of either side, and revocation would expose the plaintiff to a serious limitation risk.

Conclusion: Leave was not revoked and the application failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the continued operation of the leave granted under Clause 12, treating the assignment as jurisdictionally relevant and declining to interfere on balance of convenience or alleged abuse.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit by an assignee, the assignment is an integral part of the cause of action for Clause 12 jurisdiction, and leave already granted should not be revoked unless the surrounding circumstances clearly justify interference on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, proven mala fides, or a decisive balance of convenience.

---