Territorial jurisdiction objections should be raised in the written statement, not by revoking leave at the threshold.

Objections to the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, particularly where they depend on disputed facts, should ordinarily be raised in the written statement and tested on merits after pleadings and issues are framed. An application to revoke leave to institute the suit was therefore not the proper course for such a mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the revocation application and should have allowed the defendants to contest jurisdiction in their defence. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for revocation of leave granted for instituting the suit could be entertained on a plea that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, or whether such objection ought to be raised in the written statement and tried on merits.

Analysis: The Court held that objections of territorial jurisdiction, especially where they involve factual inquiry, should ordinarily be raised in the written statement as part of the defence and not by an application to revoke leave. Such an objection was treated as a mixed question of law and fact, to be determined after pleadings and framing of issues. The Court found that the High Court should not have entertained the revocation application and should instead have permitted the defendants to file a written statement and contest jurisdiction there. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remitted to the Single Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The revocation application was not maintainable in the manner pursued, and the defendants were left to raise the territorial jurisdiction plea in their written statement before the trial court.

---