ORDER The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff carries on business at 201A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff lent and advanced money to his elder brother, Omprakash Bhar Pilania, who used to carryon business under the Dame and style of Laxmi Narain Omprakash as sole proprietor at premises No 272, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad. Between 1st April, 1974 and 20th October, 1976 the plaintiff lent and advanced to Omprakash Rs. 55,940/-. The agreement in respect of the amount was entered into at Ahmedabad initially the rate of interest was 12% per annum. With effect from 24th March, 1980 the rate of interest was enhanced to 18% per annum by mutual coneent. The agreement to enhance the rate of interest was entered into at the plaintiff’s place of business at Calcutta. Omprakash repaid a total sum of Rs. 9,792,41P. in two instalments on 23rd October, 1976 and again on 5th April 1979 at Calcutta. In the books of accounts of the plaintiff it was recorded that the amount was received by cash transferred form account of Bhar Pilania Company. Omrakash died intestate on or about 20th June, 1980 leaving him surviving his widow (Defendant No.1) and his minor children (Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4) as his only heirs and legal representatives. It has been alleged in the plaint that on the death of Omprakash, the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 took possession of the entire estate including the sole proprietary business of Omprakash and are in possession of the same. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,10,45812P as due and payable by the Defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further claimed that the amount was payable at the plaintiff’s place of business at Calcutta 2. The suit was filed after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. This application has been made for revocation of the leave that has been granted. It has been contended by M. Das that in the first place the natural forum of the suit was at Ahmedabad. He has argued that Omprakash, now deceased, and the defendants all resided at Ahmedabad. The loan was advanced at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff actually went to Ahmedabad to give this money to the defendant and nothing has really happened so far as the loan is concerned in Calcutta. He has argued that Omprakash, now deceased, and the defendants all resided at Ahmedabad. The loan was advanced at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff actually went to Ahmedabad to give this money to the defendant and nothing has really happened so far as the loan is concerned in Calcutta. The only thing that has been pleaded in the plaint in respect of the loan transection which took place in Ca1cutta is an agreement to enhance the rate of interest Mr. Das has argued that the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked on this ground alone. It has next been contended that the balanced convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of the suit to be tried at Ahmedabad. The defendant No.1 is a widow with three minor children who are the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It will cause great hardship and inconvenience to them to come to Calcutta and defend this suit. The defendants have no place of business in Calcutta and they will have to bring all the books of accounts and other evidence to Calcutta to defend this suit. The persons who arc in a position to testify are all residents of Ahmedabad and will have to be brought to Calcutta at the time of hearing of this suit. 3. I am unable to uthold the contention made on behalf of the defendants. It is well settled that in deciding the question whether the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked or not the allegations made in the plaint must be taken to be correct. The plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action of this suit has arisen in part within the local limits of this Court. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff also carries on business at Ahmedabad. It will undoubtedly be of great inconvenience to the defendants to come to Calcutta to defend this suit und bring all their books of accounts and other evidence. It will be equally inconvenient for the plaintiff to go to Ahmedabad and to prosecute the suit there and carryall his books and other evidence. It will undoubtedly be of great inconvenience to the defendants to come to Calcutta to defend this suit und bring all their books of accounts and other evidence. It will be equally inconvenient for the plaintiff to go to Ahmedabad and to prosecute the suit there and carryall his books and other evidence. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the principal witness in this case is the plaintiff's father who is a very old man and the plaintiff's wife is unwell and it is very difficult for the plaintiff to leave Calcutta for a long period of time. 4. The plaintiff has a right to chose his forum. He has chosen Calcutta. The hardship that the defendants will suffer in having to defend the suit at Calcutta will be matched by the difficulty that the plaintiff will have to face if the suit is to be tried at Ahmedabad. The balance of convenience is not in favour of trial of this suit at Ahmedabad. 5. Mr. Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, has contended, and in my opinion rightly, that mere balance of convenience is not really a decisive factor in a case like this The defendants must establish that the balance of convenience is overwheimingly in favour of the suit being tried at Ahmedabad. The cases that were cited at the Bar illustrate this point. Leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent was revoked only in cases were it was found that it would not be inconvenient for the plaintiff to prosecute the suit at the place where the defendants reside. 6. In the case of Parasram Harnandrai v. Chitandas and others AIR 1952 Calcutta 82, a suit was filed in Calcutta with leave for dissolution of partnership and accounts. Sinha J revoked the leave that was granted. The reason for revocation was stated to be :- "The business in a running business and wholly situated in Delhi. The defendant No. 1, who is admittedly in charge of it, resides at Delhi and has never even come to Calcutta On the contrary, the plaintiff firm has a place of business at Delhi. All the defendants reside at Delhi. All the books of accounts and all persons capable of proving them are at Delhi. The only thing that happened at Calcutta is the remote agreement pleaded in paragraph 1 of the plaint. All the defendants reside at Delhi. All the books of accounts and all persons capable of proving them are at Delhi. The only thing that happened at Calcutta is the remote agreement pleaded in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is doubtful whether that is at all a relevant matter, but, in any event the cost of proving it cannot be comparable to the cost of proving the defence" 7. In the case of Ultra Engineering Industries P. Ltd v. Spintex Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1980 Calcutta 159, there were series of transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. All the transactions took place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Part payments were made outside the jurisdiction. The defendant had no office in Calcutta. But it was found that both the defendant and the plaintiff had offices at Faridabad and Delhi. In fact, it was found from the extract of the registration certificate that the plaintiff's registered office was at Delhi. Khastagir J. accepted the contention that not only the entire transaction had taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Court but both the plaintiff and the defendant had their places of business at Faridabad and Delhi. It was also pointed out that in the bills that were submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, there were clauses to the effect that the jurisdiction in respect of all disputes will be of the Faridabad Court. In those facts, leave granted under clause 12 was revoked in that case. 8. The facts of the present case are, however, quite different and are very similar to the facts of the case of Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal AIR 1949 Calcutta 495. In that case the plaintiff resided at Calcutta. There were eight defendants of whom five were minors. There were all described in the plaint as residing at Bhiwani outside the jurisdiction. The defendants were members of a Mitakshara Joint Family which carried on business under the name of Parasram Moniram at Bhiwani. In the plaint it was claimed that a sum of Rs 9,500/-. was payable by the defendants on accounts stated with interest Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants held in deposit the sum of Rs. 9,500/- under an agreement to repay the same on demand will interest. In the plaint it was claimed that a sum of Rs 9,500/-. was payable by the defendants on accounts stated with interest Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants held in deposit the sum of Rs. 9,500/- under an agreement to repay the same on demand will interest. In the application for revoking the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent it was argued at page 503 :- "The business of Parasram Moniram was carried on at Bhiwani and all persons alleged to be interested therein reside permanently in Bhiwani. The alleged deposit and the alleged adjustment took place in Bhiwani. Even Lachmi Devi reside at Bhiwani The plaintiff who is the cousin of Lachmi Debi's husband Hirjimull is a resident of Muzafferpur. This suit, it is alleged, has been, filed in this Court only to harass the applicants The applicant Ramjidas is said to be an old man of 60 years of age suffering from a serious wound in the head and unable to come to Calcutta. The applicant Siv Kumar is a young man of 22 serving as a clerk in the Punjab Cotton Mills Ltd, on a salary of Rs. 40 per month and with great difficulty obtained leave for 10 days to come to Calcutta and make this application If he has to defend this suit in Calcutta he may lose his employment and his means of livelihood. The applicants are too poor to meet the costs of this High Court suit and the expenses of travelling and they have no place to live in Calcutta. All their witnesses are residents of Bhiwani and it will not be possible for the applicants to bring them down to Calcutta or to meet the costs of a commission for their examination. On the other hand, Lachmi Debi has been ever since she became a widow in her childhood, living at Bhiwani with her brother the defendant Madanlal except for a few weeks in every 5 or 6 years when she visits her husband's people at Muzafferpur." 9. On the other hand, Lachmi Debi has been ever since she became a widow in her childhood, living at Bhiwani with her brother the defendant Madanlal except for a few weeks in every 5 or 6 years when she visits her husband's people at Muzafferpur." 9. Das J, however, declined to revoke the leave that was granted and observed at page 504 :- "Every litigation involves a certain amount of inconvenience and hardship but such normal inconvenience and hardship have never been regarded as a sufficient ground for depriving the plaintiff of his choice of forum Such inconvenience does not give the defendant any right to have all litigations against him filed in his home Court It is true that the defendants, witnesses may have to be brought down from Bhiwani or examined there on commission; but it is equally true that if the plaintiff has to file his suit at Bhiwani he will have to bring out a commission here to examine the attesting witnesses to establish the deed of assignment and passing of consideration and to examine Lachmi Debi to establish the claim all of which are disputed. The applicants or at least one of them may have to come here during the examination of these witnesses and at any rate at the time of the examination of Lachmi Debi. It may be inconvenient for the defendant to come to Calcutta but it is equally difficult for the plaintiff to leave his business and to go to Bhiwani Therefore, the balance of convenience both as regards witnesses and parties, appears to be fairly even". 10. In the instant case the balance of convenience also appears to be fairly even. Therefore, this application must fail. 11. The argument that Ahmedabad is the natural forum for trial of this suit is equally unconvincing. The money was undoubtedly lent at Ahmedabad by the plaintiff to a party residing at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff has alleged that the money had to be repaid in Calcutta. Part payments of the loan were actually made in Calcutta. The agreement to enhance the rate of interest took place in Calcutta. In order to obtain leave under clause 12, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action in part arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Part payments of the loan were actually made in Calcutta. The agreement to enhance the rate of interest took place in Calcutta. In order to obtain leave under clause 12, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action in part arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. On the facts that have been alleged in the plaint, it cannot be said that this Court is not the natural forum for trial of the dispute that has arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant. The application, therefore, fails. Each Party will pay and bear its own costs. The operation of the order is stayed for four weeks from date. Application rejected.