Clause 12 territorial jurisdiction required leave where the suit as a whole was substantially connected with Bombay, not Calcutta.

Territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 turned on where the cause of action substantially arose, and in a multi-defendant suit the jurisdictional requirement had to be satisfied as to the suit as a whole. The mere presence of one defendant carrying on business in Calcutta was insufficient where the dispute, including the effect of a release on the plaintiff's property share and accounts, was materially connected with Bombay. Leave to sue in Calcutta was therefore necessary, and the later grant of leave was treated as unwarranted because Bombay was the more appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the facts, the suit could be instituted in the Calcutta High Court without leave under Clause 12 of the Charter of the High Court of 1865; (ii) Whether the order granting leave and permitting the suit to proceed in Calcutta should be reversed and the plaint taken off the file.

Issue (i): Whether, on the facts, the suit could be instituted in the Calcutta High Court without leave under Clause 12 of the Charter of the High Court of 1865.

Analysis: The jurisdictional clause was held to depend on where the cause of action arose and, in a suit with several defendants, the word "defendant" had to be read as embracing all defendants, not merely one of them. The subject-matter of the suit, including the effect of the release upon the plaintiff's share in property and the taking of accounts, was substantially connected with Bombay. The presence of one defendant carrying on business in Calcutta was not enough to dispense with leave.

Conclusion: Leave of the Court was necessary, and the suit was not maintainable in Calcutta as of right.

Issue (ii): Whether the order granting leave and permitting the suit to proceed in Calcutta should be reversed and the plaint taken off the file.

Analysis: The order was treated as appealable because it affected the right to sue in a particular court and to compel out-of-jurisdiction defendants to answer there. On the merits, the suit was more appropriately brought in Bombay, and the possible hardship as to security for costs was removed by the defendants' undertaking not to insist on such security if the plaintiff sued there. In those circumstances, leave ought not to have been granted.

Conclusion: The order granting leave was reversed and the plaint was directed to be taken off the file.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 required leave in the circumstances of the case, and that the Calcutta suit could not be maintained where Bombay was the proper forum.

Ratio Decidendi: In a multi-defendant suit, territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 could not be founded merely on the business presence of one defendant; the clause had to be read as requiring the jurisdictional condition to be satisfied in relation to the suit as a whole, and where the proper forum lay elsewhere, leave to sue locally could be refused and the plaint removed.

---