Judgment :- M. THANIKACHALAM, J. 1. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge in Application No. 2182/2000, filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, refusing to grant leave to file the suit, has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant as plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents/defendants, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,91,92,798.20, with interest at 36% per annum on Rs. 1,78,44,489/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation, on the basis of three hire purchase agreements, under which the plaintiff had advanced loan to the first defendant, which is controlled by the second defendant as the Managing Director. Even as per the averments in the plaint, major cause of action, such as negotiation, disbursement of loan, etc., appear to have taken place at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, where admittedly the second defendant is residing, carrying on the business in the first defendant company. The plaintiff company is having its head office, within the jurisdiction of this Court. It has its branch office at Hyderabad, which had obtained the application, for loan from the defendants, processed, forwarded the same to the plaintiff, for acceptance, on which basis, loan appears to have been granted. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application, the applicant/plaintiff would state that the agreement was accepted and concluded at Madras by the second defendant, thereby saying that part of cause of action had arisen at Madras, within the jurisdiction of this Court. On that basis, application has been filed to grant leave to the plaintiff/applicant, to institute the suit in this Court, against the defendants/respondents. 3. The respondents/defendants, opposed the application contending, that the entire transaction was proposed and accepted only at Hyderabad, that no person representing the first respondent, came to Madras, to conclude the transaction, that as far as the first respondent is concerned, the agreement was concluded on the second respondent signing the agreement at Hyderabad, which address alone is given in the agreement and not the Registered Office at Madras, that no part of cause of action had arisen at Madras and that the balance of convenience, which is to be seen, while granting leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent also, only in favour of the respondents. 4. 4. The learned single Judge, considering the averments in the plaint, which are sought to be supported by affidavit, as well as the counter, came to the conclusion, that no part of cause of action had arisen, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the fact being that no act was done by the defendants within the jurisdiction of this Court, so as to say, that act has infringed the rights of the plaintiff, thereby giving part of cause of action, for the plaintiff, to lay the suit within this Court. Based on certain decisions of the Supreme Court also, accepting the contention of the respondents/defendants, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the application, as per the order dated 11.8.2000, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. T.V. Ramanujam and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. K. Harishankar. 6. The learned senior counsel, Mr. T.V. Ramanujam submitted, that as per the averments made in the plaint, part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, since payments were also made here, thereby giving or vesting power to the plaintiff, to choose the jurisdiction, to file the suit and in this way, the suit filed before this Court, where the part of cause of action had arisen, is well maintainable, but unfortunately, the learned Judge has not correctly considered the same, resulting dismissal of the application. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted, that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, that the entire transaction for the loan viz., proposal, finalisation, acceptance by the plaintiff, disbursement of money, subsequent payments are all had taken place only in the branch office of the plaintiff, which is situated at Hyderabad and therefore, creating cause of action, as if part of cause of action had arisen, within this jurisdiction and vesting jurisdiction, against the admitted fact, is not maintainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that in order to say, that part of cause of action had arisen, within the jurisdiction of this Court, there must be some act, said to have been committed by the defendants, which is not at all available, as per the pleadings and therefore the claim, part of cause of action had arisen within this Court is untenable. The third and final submission of the learned counsel for the defendants was, that while considering the petition for grant of leave, to institute the suit, the balance of convenience of the parties also, should be taken into account, which is admittedly in favour of the defendants, since the entire transaction had taken place at Hyderabad and to prove the case or disprove the same, some witnesses are also available only there, not at Madras. On the above lines, bringing to our notice, certain decisions of the Apex Court and other Court, the learned counsel submitted, that the dismissal of the application by the learned single Judge is perfectly valid, not warranting any interference. 8. It is the trite law that in order to determine the cause of action or the jurisdiction of the Court, while considering the petition seeking permission under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, we have to go only by the averments in the plaint, and not by the averments in the affidavit, though the petition and the affidavit in support of and against the revocation of leave are relevant, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Nagaraj v. Govindasamy (1983) 96 L.W. 498 ). Therefore, we have to see the averments in the plaint, pertaining to the transaction, which took place between the plaintiff and the defendants. 9. Paragraph-3 of the plaint details the procedure adopted by the plaintiff, while considering the application for the sanction of the loan, since the plaintiff finance company is having branches in several parts of the country. As per the admitted procedure, the branch office alone has to obtain application or proposal from the parties, who approached the branch office of the plaintiff, seeking loan, forwarding the application/proposal to the administrative office of the plaintiff office at Madras, where the administrative office is expected to process the same, then after satisfying, forwarding the same, to the branch office, for obtaining the signature of the applicants. Thereafter alone, the documents are retransmitted by the branch office to the administrative office of the plaintiff, for signature and acceptance of its Managing Director, who is the authorised signatory and certainly not for obtaining the signature of the person, who sought the loan or who moved the branch office, for the sanction of the loan, for the purchase of machineries, on the basis of hire purchase agreement. The averments in paragraph-3 would indicate undoubtedly, that the defendants are not expected to do anything in the administrative office and their presence is not at all necessary. After the acceptance of the proposal, even as per the allegations in the plaint, the application for hire purchase finance and other connected documents should be forwarded to the branch office, in this case, viz., Hyderabad, where admittedly, the defendants had executed the hire purchase agreements and connected documents and certainly not at Madras. On the basis of the recommendation by the branch office of the plaintiff, which is at Hyderabad, where the repayments were also contemplated and not at Madras, which could be seen by going through the plaint. Admittedly, the defendants are carrying on business at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, having the residence and business. Therefore, the subsequent payment contemplated in pursuance of the hire purchase agreement also, must be to the branch office at Hyderabad, not to the administrative office at Madras. 10. In the plaint, though it is stated that some of the cheques issued by the defendants were bounced, for which prosecutions were launched; one at Secundrabad and another at Madras, it is not the specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint that payments were made at Madras, or cheques were drawn at Madras, by the defendants, thereby to say, a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court. Though in the cause of action paragraph, it is said that cause of action had arisen at Madras, when the defendants executed Hire Purchase Agreements, when the same was accepted, signed and completed by the plaintiff at Madras, admittedly as per the averments, no act of the defendants has been done within the jurisdiction of this Court. Having these facts in mind, it should be seen whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or the entire cause of action had arisen only at Hyderabad. 11. Admittedly, major part of cause of action in this case, arises at Hyderabad and not at Madras. Having these facts in mind, it should be seen whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or the entire cause of action had arisen only at Hyderabad. 11. Admittedly, major part of cause of action in this case, arises at Hyderabad and not at Madras. Since the entire cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, or in other words, according to the plaintiff, part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petition was filed seeking permission and therefore, it is for the plaintiff to make out, that part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. In ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies ( 1989 2 SCC 163 ), the Apex Court, while concluding, that suit based on contract has to be filed at the place, where it was made, has observed: “The jurisdiction of the court in matter of a contract will depend on the situs of the contract and the cause of action arising through connecting factors. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.” thereby indicating, to decide the cause of action, the paramount consideration is the act done by the defendant, since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. As indicated by us, based upon pleadings, the defendants have not done, anything within the jurisdiction of this Court, even assuming that the plaintiff has accepted the proposal at Madras, which was forwarded by the Hyderabad Office, after processing the same, for the loan. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that the defendants had made some payment within the jurisdiction of this Court, thereby coming within the meaning of an act done by the defendants, thereby giving cause of action in part, to lay the suit before this Court. By going through the pleadings, we are unable to find any averments with specific dates, and amounts said to have been made by the defendants at Madras, so as to say that act said to have been done by the defendants would come within the meaning of ‘cause of action’. 14. In Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company ( 1991 4 SCC 270 ) it is held, where the company/corporation has its principal office at one place and subordinate office at another place and cause of action arises at the place, where the subordinate office is located, suit has to be filed only in the court within whose jurisdiction, the company has its subordinate office and not in court within whose jurisdiction, it has its principal office, which ratio is squarely applicable to the present case. 15. In South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ( 1996 3 SCC 443 = 1997 2 L.W. 408) the Apex Court took the view, that mere execution of bank guarantee at Delhi would not give rise to cause of action there and therefore, the suit filed in Delhi High Court, in respect of a contract which was executed in Bombay i.e. within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay, is not maintainable. In the case involved in the above decision, the bank guarantee was executed and liability was enforced from the bank at Delhi, thereby showing that at least for enforcement of liability, the jurisdiction had arisen within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. In the case involved in the above decision, the bank guarantee was executed and liability was enforced from the bank at Delhi, thereby showing that at least for enforcement of liability, the jurisdiction had arisen within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. But considering the fact, that for the subject matter of the suit, no cause of action has arisen at Delhi or in other words, that no act has been done by the defendant, within the jurisdiction of Delhi, the Apex Court has took the view that to enforce a contract, which was executed in Bombay, jurisdiction of Delhi High Court cannot be evoked, considering the bank guarantee alone, which was executed and liability was enforced from the bank at Delhi. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the decision in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltds case, the Apex Court has held in paragraph- 3 as follows: “It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. The cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a 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 claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. In view of the admitted position that contract was executed in Bombay, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay, performance of the contract was also to be done within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; merely because bank guarantee was executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance to Bombay, it does not constitute a cause of action to give rise to the respondent to lay the suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court. The contention that the Division Bench was right in it; finding and that since the bank g uarantee was executed and liability was enforced from the bank at Delhi, the Court got jurisdiction, cannot be sustained.” In the case involved in the above decision, considering the case of the plaintiff therein, the learned single Judge has refused to give leave to file the suit, which was upset by the Division Bench and the same was challenged before the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that the learned single judge was right in his conclusion, that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court, Delhi. In the case on hand, admittedly, as per the averments, no act has been done by the defendants, relating to the suit transaction within the jurisdiction of this Court and the act said to have been done, while accepting the proposal of the defendants was only by the plaintiff, which is not sufficient, as per the ruling cited above, to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents based upon the decision of this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Cochin Silicate & Glass Industries (1992 (2) L.W. 376), that the balance of convenience also has to be seen, while considering the leave sought for, to institute the suit, cannot be totally rejected, though that alone is not the criteria, to grant leave or refuse leave, to institute the suit. Here, as per the averments, the entire transaction took place at Hyderabad and to prove the case of the parties, whether it is for the plaintiff or the defendants, the witnesses must be available at Hyderabad and therefore, insisting their presence at Madras, may cause certain difficulties, thereby resulting some injury, which could be prevented by considering the balance of convenience, in favour of the defendants, directing the parties to institute the suit, which is having undoubted jurisdiction, thereby avoiding inconvenience to both the parties. 17. 17. The learned single Judge considering the decision of the Apex Court, as well as the pleadings of the parties, which are sought to be supported by the affidavit, had come to the conclusion, that there is no material to show, that any one of the defendants came to Madras and signed the document and in fact all the documents relied on by the parties also contained the address of the defendants/respondents, as residents of Hyderabad and no act of the defendants had taken place within the original jurisdiction of Madras High Court and in the said findings, we are unable to find any infirmity, warranting our interference, to upset the same. In the light of the settled legal position, as pointed out by us hereinbefore and in view of the certain admitted facts, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits and we would choose to dismiss the same. The appeal is dismissed without cost and we direct the registry to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present before the proper court.