Judgment :- K.J. Sengupta, J The first mentioned application G.A. No. 429 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff above-named for the interlocutory relief in the form of injunction and appointment of Receiver. The second application being G.A. No.747 of 2009 has been filed by the second defendant, Moonstar Securities Trading & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. praying for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the letters patent; for dismissal of the above suit; for rejecting the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit or in the alternative the plaint be returned for presentation before the appropriate court; stay of all further proceedings in connection with suit C.S. No. 31 of 2009 and all applications made therein pending disposal of the present suit; interim order passed, be vacated and pending disposal of the present application, interim order dated 18th February 2009 be stayed. Third application being G.A. No. 827 of 2009 has been taken out by the first defendant namely Pisces Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. For identical reliefs as prayed for by the second defendant. In the aforesaid interlocutory applications this Court on prima facie being satisfied passed several interlocutory orders at the ad interim stage. All the three applications were heard however while hearing same it was made clear to the parties that the decision of the aforesaid two demurrer applications will entirely decide the fate of the suit and the interlocutory application pending thereunder though filed earlier. Accordingly, contention raised in both the applications are taken up for consideration first. In both the petitions filed in the aforesaid two applications, the basic challenge in the suit is that this Court has no jurisdiction as there is no cause of action disclosed in the plaint which could be said to have arisen within the territorial limit of this Hon’ble Court. According to them entire transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant took place outside the territorial limit of this Court. The second defendant has been made party unnecessarily as no cause of action has been disclosed against it. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit having deliberately suppressed the Forum Selection Clause as by an agreement plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has voluntarily chosen that appropriate Court at Delhi which would have exclusive jurisdiction. In view of the said valid and binding Forum Selection Clause this suit cannot be entertained by any Court other than Court(s) in Delhi. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit having deliberately suppressed the Forum Selection Clause as by an agreement plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has voluntarily chosen that appropriate Court at Delhi which would have exclusive jurisdiction. In view of the said valid and binding Forum Selection Clause this suit cannot be entertained by any Court other than Court(s) in Delhi. Besides both the defendants are admittedly carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court hence, going by the balance of convenience the instant suit be tried and disposed of by the appropriate Court at Delhi. It is also mentioned in the plaint that already suit has been filed by one of the defendants in the appropriate Court at Delhi against the plaintiff and the same is still pending. Obviously this application is opposed by filing affidavit. In the affidavit the factual allegations have been denied, and it is stated that this application has been filed at a belated stage and after the written statement being filed. Therefore, both the applications should be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the first defendant submits pointing out the aforesaid allegations made in his client’s application that in view of the Forum Selection Clause which is binding between plaintiff and the first defendant the present suit cannot be entertained by this Court. While submitting he has relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 1. (1971) 1 SCC 286 , 2. (1989) 2 SCC 163 , 3. (2004) 4 SCC 671 , 4. (2005) 4 ALT 806, 5. 2009 (2) ALT 196 , 6. 1993 (2) SCC 740 , 7. 2002 (9) SCC 480 , 8. (2009) 11 SCALE. It is further submitted that both the defendants are having place of business at New Delhi outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. All evidences documentary and oral in connection with the present transactions are situated in New Delhi obviously outside the jurisdiction aforesaid. His client has no connection with the city of Kolkata nor does have any office or agent or representative in Calcutta and the petitioner would be greatly inconvenienced if the suit is heard in this Hon’ble Court. For those reasons the petitioner had insisted upon the incorporation of Forum Selection Clause and the plaintiff had agreed to the same. His client has no connection with the city of Kolkata nor does have any office or agent or representative in Calcutta and the petitioner would be greatly inconvenienced if the suit is heard in this Hon’ble Court. For those reasons the petitioner had insisted upon the incorporation of Forum Selection Clause and the plaintiff had agreed to the same. Learned Counsel for the second defendant has adopted and further supported the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first defendant and also relied on the same authorities cited by him. In addition to what have been relied on by the learned counsel for the first defendant the second defendant relied on following decisions of the Supreme Court reported in: 2004 (4) SCC 677 paragraph 19, 2003 (6) SCC page 401 paragraph 27. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that at the time of hearing of the learned Counsel on behalf of the first defendant ultimately submitted that he was not pressing his application being G.A. No. 827 of 2009 for revocation of leave but he is also not formally giving it up. This stand clearly shows that the said application had been filed by the first defendant merely to delay hearing in the main interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff being G.A. 827 of 2009. Therefore he does not want to advance any argument countering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 on their application for rejection of plaint. He submits that the jurisdiction of this Court being a Chartered High Court is governed by Clause 12 of the letters patent alone, and Section 20 has got no manner of application. He draws support of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Food Corporation of India vs. EVDOMEN Corporation reported in 1999 (2) SCC 446 . He submits that there has been distinction between jurisdiction of Chartered High Court under Clause 12 of the letters patent and that of the courts under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This distinction and differences have been accepted and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jindal Vijaynagar vs. Jindal Pracks Air reported in (2006) 11 SCC page 521. This distinction and differences have been accepted and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jindal Vijaynagar vs. Jindal Pracks Air reported in (2006) 11 SCC page 521. He submits as far as forum selection is concerned the second defendant is not a party to an agreement with the plaintiff which contains a Forum Selection Clause and as such, its application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the letters patent based on Forum Selection Clause contained in a letter dated 24th September, 2007 issued by the defendant No.1 without substance and also cases cited by it are inapplicable. As there is no substance in the application for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent and/or dismissal of the suit hence both the applications being G.A. 827 of 2009 and G.A. 747 of 2009 are liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for all the parties advanced argument in support of their respective cases in the interlocutory application also. Those arguments have been taken on record by the Court in the written notes of argument. This will be considered and discussed after the aforesaid two applications are disposed of by the Court. It is well settled position of the law as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first defendant that the demurrer action has to be considered reading the allegations made in the plaint and the accompanying documents annexed thereto and without adding anything else. Since point has been taken that there has been forum selection clause it is to be examined. I think whether there has been a Forum Selection Clause or not or for that matter whether such a clause is binding and operative or not can be decided by the Court if it has got jurisdiction over the subject-matter as per disclosure made in the plaint, for if the Court finds on examining the allegations made in the plaint do not have any jurisdiction obviously, the existence, legality, validity of the Forum Selection Clause should not be examined by the Court as this can be dealt with by the appropriate Court having jurisdiction on the disclosure of the causes of action in the plaint at this stage. Hence, for the time being I am not observing nor commenting whether there has been any Forum Selection Clause or who are the parties to the same and whether the same is binding subsisting or not. I have perused the plaint each and every line. It appears to me that the sum and substance of the grievance and the essential features as follows:- (a) From cause title it appears that the plaintiff is having place of business within the territorial limit of this Court. Both the defendants are shown to have their respective place of business and/or office outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The present suit has been filed on obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the letters patent alleging a part of the cause of action as pleaded in paragraphs 1, 3 to 12 arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and paragraphs 1, 4, 8 to 11 and 12 outside jurisdiction of this Court. (b) In or about September 2007 with the corporation of one M/s. Unitech Group first defendant agreed to grant loan to the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 3.10 crores and the same is to be repaid with interest at the rate of 13.50%. The said agreement was concluded by and between the plaintiff and the first defendant at the plaintiff’s place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thereafter, as a security the first defendant handed over two undated cheques bearing No.523358 and 523359 for Rs. 3.10 crores for principle amount and Rs. 32,36,679/- for the amount of interest. Both the cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Park Street Branch, Kolkata. (c) The payment by the first defendant in terms of the aforesaid agreement was made by transfer of funds through inter banking system in the bank account standing in the name of the plaintiff maintained with the State Bank of India, Park Street Branch, Kolkata within the aforesaid jurisdiction. (d) By way of further security the plaintiff on or about 7th July 2008 executed a deed of pledge with the first defendant as a pledgee and thereby plaintiff agreed to pledge 30 lakhs warrant issued in the name of the plaintiff with the first defendant. The said deed of pledge was signed by the Director of the plaintiff at the office of the plaintiff at 33A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 071 within aforesaid jurisdiction. The said deed of pledge was signed by the Director of the plaintiff at the office of the plaintiff at 33A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 071 within aforesaid jurisdiction. Thereafter the said signed deed of pledge together with original warrant certificates were handed over by the plaintiff to the first defendant who received it at its office at New Delhi outside the aforesaid jurisdiction. However the first defendant has failed to send back a copy of the deed of pledge duly signed by the plaintiff. The said agreement for loan was acted upon by payment and also deduction of income tax at source of the interest payment by the plaintiff. (e) On or about 11th February, 2009, the first defendant by an instrument in writing sold the said warrants pledged by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 and it also assigned the debt payable by the plaintiff along with the security of the said 30 lacs warrants in favour of the defendant No.2 outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The sale of warrants pledged by the plaintiff with the defendant No.1 and the assignment of debt along with the said underlying security of 30 lacs warrants in favour of the defendant No.2 is wholly illegal, null and void and liable to be cancelled on various grounds mentioned in the plaint. The sale of warrants pledged by the plaintiff with the defendant No.1 and the assignment of debt along with the said underlying security of 30 lacs warrants in favour of the defendant No.2 is wholly illegal, null and void and liable to be cancelled on various grounds mentioned in the plaint. Based on the aforesaid allegations the plaintiff have claimed the following reliefs: (i) Instrument of purported sale of the 30 lacs warrants dated 11th February, 2009 be declared illegal, null and void; (ii) Deed of purported assignment dated 11th February, 2009 be declared illegal, null and void; (iii) Decree for delivery up and cancellation of the purported instrument of sale dated 11th February, 2009 claimed to have been executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 for the alleged sale of the 30 lacs warrants; (iv) Decree for delivery up and cancellation of the purported deed of assignment dated 11th February, 2009 claimed to have been executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 for the alleged assignment of the pledge agreement dated July 7, 2008 with the security of the said 30 lacs warrants; (v) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.2 and each of their men, agents and servants from in any manner giving effect or further effect to the purported instrument of sale dated 11 February 2009 of the said 30 lacs warrants and/or the purported deed of assignment dated 11 February 2009 in any manner whatsoever. It is thus clear that the reliefs claimed and also the allegations made in the plaint exclusively relate to assignment of the debts and security and also sale of the aforesaid warrants, and the same has been specifically challenged. Naturally cause of action would be facts and bundles of facts relating to creation of pledge of shares and assignment of debt together with securities viz. warrants and also sale of pledged shares. The cause of action connotes and constitute facts and bundle of facts averred in the plaint and the plaintiff has to prove in order to get the relief claimed, if traversed. warrants and also sale of pledged shares. The cause of action connotes and constitute facts and bundle of facts averred in the plaint and the plaintiff has to prove in order to get the relief claimed, if traversed. Therefore, the plaintiff has to plead and indeed it has been pleaded when, how and where the pledge was created, and then 30 lacs of warrants were handed over to the first defendant; thereafter assignment deed of pledge executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and next is where those documents are lying. It has been said specifically in paragraph 8 that the original warrant certificate and the deed of pledge were received by the first defendant at its office at New Delhi outside the aforesaid jurisdiction. Therefore, this statement makes it clear that creation of the pledge is complete on delivery of original warrant certificate as well as deed of pledge, blank transfer deed. Mere signing of deed unilaterally by the plaintiff at its office does not constitute any part of cause of action. The moment document is signed by the pledgee not by the pledgor alone execution of deed of assignment is complete. Moreover, for creation of pledge delivery of the movable goods viz. here warrant certificate together with delivery of blank transfer deed are sufficient. (see AIR 1953 Cal 526 Kanhaiyalal Jhanwar –vs.- Pandit Shirali & Co & others.) The aforesaid facts constituting cause of action has taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Allegations has to be proved by the plaintiff that there has been sale by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and naturally it has been pleaded in paragraph 12 and admittedly it is alleged that it had taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. In my view the place of business of the plaintiff in a suit of this nature does not constitute a jurisdictional fact. Similarly mere discussion and negotiation alleged to have taken place at the plaintiff’s place of business within the jurisdiction, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants do not form or constitute any part of cause of action in this suit. The first limb of the allegation in the plaint is that there has been a concluded contract for granting loan and payment of loan amount. The first limb of the allegation in the plaint is that there has been a concluded contract for granting loan and payment of loan amount. I think the moment any agreement for granting loan is acted upon by the parties, the factum of negotiation and conclusion of agreement are not at all determinative factor on granting and accepting loan as on payment of loan amount agreement therefore does stand discharged by performance. This fact can no longer be said to be any integral part of cause of action in a suit of this nature. With parity of reasoning for enforcement of pledge granting of loan is not a germane in the present suit as it is not required to be proved at all. Pledgement is a separate transaction as it appears that it is a collateral security. Moreover, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case we think that even if for argument sake agreement for granting loan can be said to be a part of the cause of action the same is very very insignificant part and considering balance of convenience this Court would not be an appropriate forum as both the defendants are admittedly carrying on business outside jurisdiction of this Court. They should not be dragged here. On the basis of the disclosure of the allegations made in the plaint I am of the view clearly, no part of cause of action is shown to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Allegation of receipt of letter dated 11th February, 2009 by the plaintiff is not part of cause of action as this letter has nothing to do with the creation of pledge or sale of original warrant. Mere receipt of intimation of a certain illegal act is not cause of action to confer jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. I have already discussed the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 3 are not at all constituting the cause of action in this suit. It is well settled that the Court at the first instance having examined statements and averments made in the plaint grants leave to institute the suit however, such grant is not an absolute, it can be revoked at any time as it relates to the question of jurisdiction, even if a written statement is filed, before or even at the time of, trial. It depends upon the nature of the case made out in the demurer action whether question of jurisdiction should be dealt with at the time of trial of the suit as a preliminary issue or before trial. Here the argument has been advanced placing the plaint, this could be done at this stage. In view of the discussion above I think that this Court has no jurisdiction and, the leave was obtained under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent without making any averment of part cause of action having been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly leave granted under Clause 12 of the letters patent revoked. Consequently the aforesaid two applications are disposed of. I do not think it fit to consider the other point agitated by both the parties with regard to the forum selection or otherwise. Similarly, I have not considered any argument advanced in the application filed by the plaintiff. Hence the plaint be taken off the file and be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before appropriate forum if so advised. Interim order already passed will stand vacated. The amount which has been paid by Mr. Mukherjee’s client be returned to his client with interest accrued if any. There will be no order as to costs.