Clause 12 leave must be revoked where the plaint discloses no material part of the cause of action.

The plaintiff instituted a suit principally seeking recovery of ₹1,32,72,600 as damages, alternatively an enquiry into damages, with interest and ancillary reliefs, arising from alleged deprivation of its use and enjoyment of a 5,600 sq. ft. godown at Dhulagori, Howrah.

The godown had been let to M/s. Vrinda Texprints under a tenancy agreement dated 1 January 2003. According to the plaint, Customs authorities searched and sealed the premises on 23 August 2003 and retained control until 2 April 2013, allegedly causing loss of rent, deprivation of use and damage.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a decree against its tenant in Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 before the Howrah Civil Court.

The defendant sought revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and consequential rejection of the plaint.

Whether, on the averments in the plaint, any material part of the cause of action against the Customs authorities arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865.

Whether correspondence, demands, the prior Howrah decree, or the subsequent proceedings created a sufficient territorial nexus with Kolkata for sustaining the leave under Clause 12.

Whether the suit was a “suit for land” or, being a damages action, could nevertheless be maintained before this Court under Clause 12.

Whether the appropriate consequence of the absence of territorial jurisdiction was revocation of leave and return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, which requires the plaintiff, in a suit other than a suit for land, to establish that a material part of the cause of action arose within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

Relying on Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. v. Deutsche Bank, (2004) 12 SCC 376, it held that, at the stage of considering revocation of leave, the plaint’s averments are ordinarily accepted as correct and jurisdiction may be decided where lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the plaint.

Under Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 205, disputed questions of territorial jurisdiction may generally await trial, but no such deferment is necessary where the jurisdictional deficiency is apparent from the plaint.

Applying Excel Dealcomm (P) Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd., (2015) 8 SCC 219, the character of a suit for land is determined from the plaint and reliefs claimed; a damages suit without a claim for title or possession is not a suit for land.

Where jurisdiction is absent, the appropriate procedural consequence is return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

The plaint itself located every material event constituting the alleged wrong at Dhulagori, Howrah: the search, sealing, assumption of control, deprivation of use and alleged damage all concerned the godown situated there.

Consequently, no material part of the cause of action arose within Kolkata.

The Court held that correspondence or demands sent from or received in Kolkata were merely consequential and did not constitute a material part of the underlying cause of action.

The prior decree in the landlord–tenant dispute did not confer jurisdiction because that proceeding involved a distinct juridical cause and neither adjudicated the plaintiff’s claim against the Customs authorities nor supplied the territorial nexus required by Clause 12.

Although the suit was not a suit for land, its damages-based character did not dispense with the requirement of showing that a material part of the cause of action arose within Kolkata.

Since the jurisdictional defect was apparent from the plaint and did not require determination of disputed evidence, the leave could not be sustained.

The leave granted for institution of C.S. No. 86 of 2014 was revoked.

The plaint and accompanying documents were directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the competent court.

The Court left open the merits of the damages claim, the legality of the Customs authorities’ conduct, limitation, causation, quantum and all defences.

The prior Howrah decree and subsequent proceedings were also left open for consideration by the competent court, and there was no order as to costs.