Clause 12 leave to sue remains discretionary where the suit is chiefly connected to another forum and convenience points away from jurisdiction.

Pleaded fraud and concealment may form part of the cause of action for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent if the allegations, read as a whole, disclose an within jurisdiction. Even so, leave remains discretionary and may be refused where the suit is essentially connected with another forum and the balance of convenience favours that forum. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code does not enlarge the High Court's original jurisdiction, and the mere presence of some defendants within jurisdiction does not by itself justify entertaining the whole suit. The result was that leave to sue was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction so as to justify leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. (ii) Whether leave should be granted having regard to the balance of convenience and the statutory limits on bringing before the Court defendants not resident within jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction so as to justify leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: The alleged Madras element depended on averments of fraud and concealment connected with prior litigation. The Court treated the pleaded fraud, if sufficiently alleged, as capable of forming part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes. It held that discovery of fraud alone was not enough, but that the pleading, read as a whole, disclosed an allegation of fraud occurring before the High Court which could amount to part of the cause of action within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Yes, the pleaded fraud was treated as capable of constituting part of the cause of action within jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether leave should be granted having regard to the balance of convenience and the statutory limits on bringing before the Court defendants not resident within jurisdiction.

Analysis: Even assuming jurisdiction existed, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of leave. The suit was essentially connected with Malabar, where nearly the whole cause of action arose and where the principal defendant and the relevant estate were situated. The Court also observed that Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code did not enlarge the Court's original jurisdiction under Clause 12, and that the presence of some defendants within jurisdiction did not by itself justify bringing the whole suit here.

Conclusion: Leave to sue was refused and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting leave was set aside and the plaintiff was not permitted to proceed in the Madras High Court on the facts and discretionary considerations found by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, even where some jurisdictional basis exists, leave to sue is discretionary and may be refused when the suit is essentially connected with another forum and the balance of convenience does not justify entertaining it; Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code does not expand the High Court's original jurisdiction.

---