Clause 12 jurisdiction turns on receipt of a misleading notice within forum limits; revocation needs proof of injustice or bad faith.

Receipt of a misleading notice within Calcutta, where the plaintiffs resided, was treated as part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim, so clause 12 jurisdiction was attracted and leave was properly granted. Revocation of that leave required more than a preferable alternative forum; the court needed proof that trial in the chosen forum would cause injustice or that the forum was selected mala fide. On the facts, no sufficient prejudice, unfairness, or bad faith was shown, so revocation was unsustainable and the plaintiffs could maintain the suit in the chosen forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a part of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the court's ordinary original jurisdiction so as to sustain leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent; (ii) whether the leave already granted should be revoked on the grounds of convenience or mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether a part of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the court's ordinary original jurisdiction so as to sustain leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent

Analysis: The suit was founded on the alleged misleading notice sent to shareholders and received by the plaintiffs at Calcutta, where they resided. The alleged nondisclosure and misrepresentation were integral facts the plaintiffs had to prove to succeed. Receipt of the notice within jurisdiction, coupled with the alleged defective disclosure, constituted part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim. The place of posting did not determine the place of service for this purpose.

Conclusion: A part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, and the leave was properly granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the leave already granted should be revoked on the grounds of convenience or mala fides

Analysis: Leave under clause 12 is discretionary, but revocation requires more than a mere balance of convenience. The court must be satisfied that trying the suit in the chosen forum would work injustice to the defendant or that the forum was chosen mala fide. On the facts, the issues turned mainly on the notice, the old and new articles, and the documents showing the controlling interest of the relevant parties. No sufficient prejudice or injustice was shown, and the allegation of mala fides was not established.

Conclusion: The leave should not have been revoked, and the order revoking it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit in the chosen forum, and the revocation of leave was set aside, while the injunction matter was sent back for hearing on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a misleading notice is received within the forum's jurisdiction and forms an essential part of the pleaded cause of action, clause 12 jurisdiction is attracted; revocation of leave requires proof of such inconvenience or unfairness as would cause injustice, not merely a superior convenience elsewhere.

---