Judgment :- A learned single Judge of this Court has revoked the leave granted to the Appellant herein to sue the Defendants/Respondents under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court and ordered return of the plaint to the Appellant herein for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Revocation, it is not in dispute, was sought for on the ground that the entire cause of action arose in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the Defendants would be put to loss, hardship and difficulty if they had to defend the suit is this Court. The first contention, however, has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the basis of a statement in the plaint that the parties had entered into a compromise within the original side territorial jurisdiction of this court, has accepted the second contention to hold that on principles when convenience of the parties is taken into account, to would be appropriate to revoke the leave to sue the Defendants in this court. The judgment of the Calcuta High Court in the case of BIHAR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. RAM CHAND KHOSLA 1982 AIR(Cal) 537) and some other cases on the subject have been cited in the judgment on the doctrine of 'forum of convenience; and it can be said with certainity that the learned single Judge was not unaware of the principle that the court will ordinarily take into consideration the balance of convenience and may if the balance is definitely in favour of the defendant, apply the doctrine of 'forum of convenience; The Calcutta judgment cited supra is one in which, the court took notice of the transaction out of which the claim had arisen to have taken place at Patna -the place of business out of the defendant firm and the relevant documents relating to the contract and the transactions all being at Patna the defendants being at Patna and then said if the suit is tried in this court, all the said documents and witness will have to be produced before this Court apart from the great inconvenience that will be caused to the appellant, it will have to incur enormous expenses considering the respective advantages and disadvantage of the parties, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances it is in favour of this being tried by a court in Patna. A Bench of this Court in the case of K. MURUGESAN v, SEETHALAKSHMI (19992-I-L.W.277) indicated while considering an appeal refusing to revoke the leave granted to sure in this Court, that if not but the part to the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and without traversing the facts leading to the transactions within the territorial jurisdiction of court, it will not be possible to grant any relief and decide the issues of facts and law, the leave which has already been granted should not be revoked. Speaking, however, specifically on the doctrine of 'forum of convenience; a Bench of this court in the case of TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD.v.M/s. COCHIN SILICATE & GLASS INDUSTRIES (1992II MLJ 376) said as follows: "The principle of balance of convenience, which is an extension of the doctrine 'forum convenient' has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Seshatri Row v. Nawab Ka Askur Jung Aftal Dowlah Mushral Mulk, . It has been observed in the said judgment: Having regard to the wording of Art.12, it is clear that the facts that the cause of action arises in part within the local limits is not conclusive, and that, notwithunderstanding that the cause of action arises in part within the local limits, the court may decline to give leave to sue" " As regards the law of this country, so far as we aware. it has never been held that the question of convenience is not a question which may be taken into consideration in dealing with applications under Clause 12, and we are certainly not prepared to hold that this question should be excluded from consideration". This view has been reiterated in several judgments of the courts having original jurisdiction including the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Parasaram v. Chintandas, 1982 AIR(Cal) 537. But then, in considering the balance of convenience, the court is required to see the plaint and facts stated therein. The court has to necessarily see the entire bundle of facts and then to determine the question of convenience. But then, in considering the balance of convenience, the court is required to see the plaint and facts stated therein. The court has to necessarily see the entire bundle of facts and then to determine the question of convenience. Stating, though with respect to grant of interlocutory injunctions, In Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol.21at pages 364 and 365, the balance of convenience is stated as follows: "Where any doubt exists as to the plaintiff's right, or if his right is not disputed, but its violation is denied, the court in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted takes into consideration the balance of convenience to the parties and the nature of the injury which the defendant, on the one hand, would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right, and that which the plaintiff, on the other hand, might sustain if the injunction was refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right .The burden of proof that the inconvenience which the plaintiff will suffer by the refusal of the injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer, if it is granted, lies upon the plaintiff". We do not say that in considering the balance of convenience as to the forum for instituting a suit, it would be necessary (like the principles of injunction) to see the ultimate injury that a party may suffer but we do find support to our view the we state in no uncertain terms that in deciding whether to refuse leave or not, it would be necessary to see on facts and not, on assumptions, who shall suffer the plaintiff the defendant-if the leave is granted or refused, as the case may be". 3. We are, however, constrained to observe that when parties were unaware of the rule that the doctrine of 'forum convenient' is one under which in deciding whether to refuse or not, it would be necessary to see on facts and not on assumptions who shall suffer-the plaintiff or the defendant-if the leave is granted or refused, yet there has been no consideration of this aspect in the impugned judgment except that the defendant lived within the State of Andhra Pradesh and that they would be greatly inconvenienced if they were asked to appear in a suit on the original side. Facts which appear to give rise to the impugned judgment are the averments in the affidavit if the defendants that: i) The defendants are carrying on business at Hyderabad and they are permanent residents of Hyderabad; and ii) unless the leave granted is revoked, the defendants will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It will be very difficult for the defendants to defend the suit in this Hon'ble Court since they are permanent residents of Hyderabad. 4. A mere reading of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court is enough to exclude any effect of the residence of the defendants when the issue before the court is whether to grant leave to sue. Leave is required only in a case in which the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction. Residence of the defendant within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court is another aspect and one should not get carried away by the assertion of the defendant in this behalf as has been pointed out by a Bench of this Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. M/s. Cochin Silicate & Glass Industries (1992 II MLJ 376) cited supra. Cause of action means a fact, which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In considering the balance of convenience, it has been clearly pointed out by the Bench in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. M/s. Cochin Silicate & Glass Industries (1992 II MLJ 376) supra, the court is required to see the plaint and the facts stated therein. The court has to necessarily see the entire bundle of facts and then to determine the question of convenience. To show to us, however, that if entire bundle if facts are taken into account, it will be seen that the instant suit is confined to the dispute, as to the passing off the same Ammonium Chloride Tablets which has been only one of the items which has been treated under six Trade Marks and instant suit has been only one of the six suits. It has also been brought to our notice that the five other suits have been proceeding in this Court being C.S. No. 1012 of 1987 filed on 17-12 1987, C.S. No.975 of 1987 filed on 2-12-1987, C.S. No. 984 of 1987 filed on 11-12-87, C. S. No. 985 of 1987 filed on 11-12-1987 and C. S. 1000 of 1987 filed on 17-12-1987. The judgment of the trial court has not addressed itself to balance the convenience of the parties and to see, "so as to impress upon the respective advantage and dis-advantage of the parties has been considered, it has been found that there shall be great inconvenience to the defendant/respondents" Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has got goods reasons to concerned that the finding of the learned single Judge on the alleged agreement within local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is not sufficient for the grant to leave on the aground that cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. How far, however, this argument will carry conviction and how far in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. M/s. SWAIKA PROPERTIES and the judgment of this Court in the case of K.MURUGESAN v. SEETHALAKSHMI (1992-1-L.W.277) it will go, we do not decide, since we purpose, for the reasons aforesaid, to remit the case for a re-consideration whether the leave should be revoked on the question of the convenience of the parties. We could ourselves examine whether in keeping with the nature of the transactions between the parties, it would be inconvenient to the defendants to defend themselves before this Court or would be inconvenient to the plaintiff if he is asked to institute the suit in a court in the State of Andhra Pradesh, but we do not do so for a good reason, for if we do so, we shall usurp the jurisdiction and discretion of the learned single Judge, who is decide whether to grant leave or not. Since we are of opinion that a proper adjudication is necessary on all relevant facts of the case before deciding whether to grant leave or not in the light of the observations in the judgments of this Court as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court and we have found that it has not been done in passing the impugned judgment, we are inclined to interfere and accordingly set aside the judgment of the court below. The case is remitted to the Original Side of this Court for a re-hearing and decision on the question whether leave should be ground or not, in accordance with law. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Held : Held that when the parties were unaware of the rule that the doctrine of 'forum convenient' under which it is to be whether to refuse or not to refuse leave to sue the defendant in this Court, it would be necessary to see on facts and not on assumptions who shall suffer, the plaintiff or the defendant, if the leave is granted or refused. There being no consideration of this aspect in the impugned judgment except that defendants lived within the State of Andhra Pradesh, the judgment is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the Original side of this Court for decision in accordance with law.