Judgment :- M. Venugopal, J. The O.S.A.No.280 of 2007 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff as against the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned single Judge revoking the leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff in Appln. No.1763 of 2004 filed by the first respondent/first defendant/applicant. 2.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff Bank filed the suit C.S.No.317 of 2003 (after obtaining leave in Appln. No.1672 of 2003 dated 09.04.2003) against D1 to D4 praying for a judgment and decree being passed jointly and severally against the first defendant for a sum of Rs.43,48,973/- together with interest at 25% p.a. on Rs.41,50,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment and in the event of a decree not being passed against the first defendant, then to pass a Judgment and decree against D2 to D4 for a sum of Rs.45,27,857/- together with interest at 25% p.a. on and from the date of plaint till the date of payment and that the appellant/plaintiff filed Appln. No.1672 of 2003 praying for permission to grant leave to sue the defendants in High Court, which was granted as per order dated 09.04.2003 and that the learned single Judge has revoked the leave granted on 10.07.2007 in Appln. No.1763 of 2004 filed by the first respondent/first defendant/Applicant, which is not correct in law and therefore prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the first respondent/first defendant and noticed the rival contentions. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff informs this Court that he is not challenging the orders passed in Appln. No.1763 of 2003 dated 10.07.2007 in so far as it relates to R2 to R4/D2 to D4. 4.Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned single Judge having held in paragraph No.20 of the order that it appears under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this Court would have jurisdiction to try a suit if the defendant resides or carries on business or as a place of business within its territorial jurisdiction, even have no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction should not have revoked the leave against the first defendant/Bank especially when the prayer 18(a) in the plaint is against only the first defendant. 5.It is to be noted that the original jurisdiction of the High Court is derived from clause 12 of the Letters Patent. As a matter of fact, the dwelling of the defendant within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the High Court in whole or in part will be relevant only in cases where the subject matter of the suit is not land or other immovable property. 6.It cannot be gain said that clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court which speaks of original jurisdiction as to suits refers to the power of the High Court to receive, try and determine suits of every description if, (i) in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, (ii) if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, (iii) in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court: or, (iv) if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees. 7.Admittedly, the first respondent/first defendant Bank (Appln. No.1763 of 2003) is having the Regional Office at No.1, Sterling Road, Chennai-34, at the time of commencement of the suit. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant urges that merely because the first respondent/first defendant is having the Regional Office in Chennai that will not enable the appellant/plaintiff to have a cause of action against the first respondent/first defendant and that no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai and admittedly, D2 to D4 are carrying on business at Coimbatore. In as much as the first respondent/first defendants Regional Office is at No.1, Sterling Road, Chennai within the jurisdiction of the High Court at the time of commencement of the suit, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed on its original side by the appellant/plaintiff as against the first respondent/first defendant. 8.In that view of the matter, we are perforced to interfere with the observation of the learned single Judge that in all fairness the plaintiff should prosecute the suit only before the appropriate Court at Coimbatore as against all the defendants etc., and resultantly revoking the leave originally granted in Appln.No.1672 of 2003 on 09.04.2003 in entirety and accordingly, set aside the order passed in Appln. No.1763 of 2004 dated 10.07.2007 revoking leave in so far as it relates to the first respondent/first defendant only and allow the appeal to the above extent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.