Judgment : V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. 1. This application has been filed by the defendants seeking to revoke the order of leave to sue dated 04.02.2011 made in A.No.762 of 2011 in C.S.No.93 of 2011. 2. Heard Mr. Ashokapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Pass Associates, learned counsel for the applicants / defendants and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants / defendants would submit in his argument that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and for other reliefs as stated in the plaint from doing strikes in Yanam and Karaikal and where the plaintiff's ceramic factories are situated. He would further submit in his argument that the plaintiff has absolutely no cause of action much less any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain, try and adjudicate the suit. He would also submit that the respondent / plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action has arisen in Koyambedu also, where the regional office has been situated cannot be correct and they were stated only for the purpose of misleading the Court to get leave from this Hon'ble Court in the application in A.No.762 of 2011 and thus, he got the leave on 04.02.2011. He would further submit that if really, the cause of action arose at the regional office in Koyambedu, Chennai, the relief sought for would also have been included for an injunction similar to that of the factories at Yanam and Karaikal. He would also submit in his argument that the allegations made in the plaint was only depicting the imaginary cause of action with an apprehension that the defendants' union members may do strike before the regional office at Chennai and it was a ruse to get leave to sue, since no relief has been sought for on the basis of the said cause of action. He would cite a judgment of this Court made in O.S.A.No.48 of 2011 as found in (M/s. Murthy Hosiery Mills represented by its Managing Partner Miller R.T. Murthy & another ..vs.. The State Bank of India represented by its Chief General Manager & another) in support of his argument. He would cite a judgment of this Court made in O.S.A.No.48 of 2011 as found in (M/s. Murthy Hosiery Mills represented by its Managing Partner Miller R.T. Murthy & another ..vs.. The State Bank of India represented by its Chief General Manager & another) in support of his argument. Quoting the aforesaid judgment, he would further submit that the cause of action said to have arisen in Koyambedu has not been substantiated through any documentary evidence produced along with the plaint and therefore, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. He would further submit in his argument that the Contempt Petition is in no way connected with the present application to revoke the leave and the objections raised by the respondent in the counter that the defendants can raise the plea of revoking the leave only after purging the contempt committed by him, cannot be correct as the contempt proceedings is entirely a different proceedings from the suit proceedings. He would also submit that the filing of counter affidavit in the applications by the plaintiff would not in any way submit to the jurisdiction, since the leave granted by the Court to sue by this Court can at any time be withdrawn if it is shown that the suit has not been laid in accordance with clause – 12 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, he would request the Court that the cause of action alleged are farce and the alleged cause of action said to have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court are imaginary and it would not give any actual cause of action to the suit and therefore, the leave granted in A.No.762 of 2011 on 04.02.2011 may be revoked and the plaint may be rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would submit in his argument that for filing a suit before this Court invoking the original jurisdiction, the ingredients of clause -12 of Letters Patent would alone be attracted and Sections 16, 17 and 20 of CPC were excluded from the application to High Court proceedings as per the provisions of Section 120 CPC. He would further submit in his argument that the defendants have filed the counter in the injunction application and given an undertaking before this Court and therefore, the said act of the defendants would be amounting to submitting to the jurisdiction. He would further submit in his argument that the defendants have filed the counter in the injunction application and given an undertaking before this Court and therefore, the said act of the defendants would be amounting to submitting to the jurisdiction. He would further submit in his argument that the plaint allegations alone have to be gone into to ascertain the causes of action alleged and the provisions of clause -12 of the Letters Patent have to be applied for ascertaining whether the plaint filed before this Court was in order. He would further submit that the causes of action alleged in the plaint would go to show that the regional office of the plaintiff is located at Koyambedu, Chennai and the workers of the defendants, who indulged in sitting and stay in, strike in the factory premises at Yanam and Karaikal, have also contemplated similar protest and strike in front of the regional office at Koyambedu, Chennai and before the outlets showrooms at all places and also at their registered office at Hyderabad and factory premises at Yanam and Karaikal and therefore, a part of cause of action for filing the suit seeking for permanent injunction would arise within the jurisdiction of this Court also and therefore, the ingredients of clause -12 of the Letters Patent as to part of cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of this Court would entitle the plaintiff to obtain leave to file the suit before this Court. He would further submit in his argument that the relief sought for against the defendants would also go to show that the permanent injunction was prayed restraining the defendants from doing strike within 200 metres of the factory premises at Karaikal and East Godhavari District and Yanam, apart from the regional office located at Koyambedu and the outlets and showrooms situated at Chennai and other places. He would also submit in his argument that further relief sought for, for permanent injunction in interfering with loading and unloading of the manufactured goods in the trucks of the plaintiff's, would also include the retail showroom at Koyambedu, Chennai and therefore, it cannot be said that the part of cause of action did not arise within the original jurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit in his argument that the truth or correctness of the allegations made in the plaint cannot be gone into at this stage and its veracity can be found only in a full fledged trial and therefore, the allegations made in the plaint would be sufficient to hold the key regarding the compliance of the ingredients of clause -12 of the Letters Patent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would cite catena of judgments in support of his argument, which would run as follows:- (1) 1992 (II) MLJ 376 (Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., ..vs.. M/s. Cochin Silicate & Glass Industries, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partners Mr. A.J. Shelat and another); (2) 1988 (1) LW 616 (Chhogalal ..vs.. G. Ramalingam); (3) 1992 (1) LW 277 (K.Murugesan ..vs.. Seetthalakshmi); (4) 1995 TLNJ 263 (Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh ..vs.. Brooke Bond India Ltd., Madras–4); (5) 2003 (4) CTC 556 (M/s. Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., ..vs.. M/s.Binny Engineering Ltd.,); (6) 2003 (2) TLNJ 257 (Sundaram Finance Limited ..vs.. M/s. The Craftsman Private Limited and another); and (7) 2006 (4) MLJ 392 (Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd.,) Quoting these judgments, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would submit in his argument that the plaint allegations as well as the cause of action paragraph would show that part of cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the plaintiff has complied with the requisite of clause -12 of the Letters Patent and therefore, the suit is very well maintainable and the leave granted by this Court in A.No.762 of 2011 in C.S.No.93 of 2011 dated 04.02.2011 need not be revoked. 6. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 7. 6. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 7. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for following reliefs:- "(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant Union and its members from assembling within 200 metres of the boundary of its company, factory premises at Yanam, Sellur Village at Karaikal and Inalveli Mandal, East Godavari District, regional and administrative offices, their sales outlet and restrain the defendants from obstructing the ingress and egress to the lawful workers, movements of vehicles carrying raw materials, finished goods, essential commodities, manufactured tiles and other goods from the factory premises or to their sales outlet except in accordance with law; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and its members from interfering with assembly within 200 metres of the regional office as well as factory premises Yanam, Sellur Village at Karaikal and Inaveli Mandal, East Godavari District amdn making demonstration, slogan shouting or meetings in front of the regional office, administrative office, sales outlet and factory premises at Karaikal and Inaveli Mandal, East Godavari District; (c) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, and its members from interfering with the loading as well as unloading of the manufactured goods in the trucks of Regency Transport Carriers of the plaintiffs; (d) grant such further or other reliefs; and (e) costs of the suit." 8. The plaintiff has stated in the pleadings the reasons for the grant of such reliefs by this Court. On the basis of the pleadings stated in the body of the plaint, causes of action for those pleadings have been enumerated in a separate paragraph. 9. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is functioning from its registered office at Hyderabad and it is looking after the affairs of the plaintiff even from the regional office located at Koyambedu, Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants 1 to 7 are either living or doing their business or their work place are situated in Puducherry State or in East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, all the defendants are not either residing or working within the original jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, there is no suit property mentioned in connection with the reliefs sought for in the plaint, since it is not a suit for land or immovable property. Therefore, all the defendants are not either residing or working within the original jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, there is no suit property mentioned in connection with the reliefs sought for in the plaint, since it is not a suit for land or immovable property. In the backdrop of the case stated in the plaint, I could understand that the suit has been filed before this Court by stating that the regional office of the plaintiff is located within the jurisdiction of this Court and there is a sale outlet or a retail showroom situated at Koyambedu, Chennai and the defendants are intimidating the loyal workers, who are working there with dire consequences if they are also not participating in the strike. The said averments have been made by the plaintiff, apart from the union activities to indulge in preventing or intimidating the loyal workers from doing their work at Yanam and Karaikal factories belonging to the plaintiff. No doubt, it is true that the premises where the permanent injunction sought for in respect of the factories at Yanam and Karaikal are not within the original jurisdiction of this Court. But the regional office and the retail showroom outlet are situated in Koyambedu, Chennai. The causes of action mentioned in the plaint and the reliefs mentioned in the plaint would go to show that the plaintiff has sought for the reliefs in respect of the retail show room at Koyambedu and the regional office situated therein apart from the factories at Yanam and Karaikal and therefore, the parts of cause of action alleged in the plaint was in respect of retail show room of the plaintiff and the regional office situated at Koyambedu, Chennai also and they would be affected towards the intimidation of loyal workers by the agitating workers and in the interim injunction application, the respondents / defendants have given undertaking. In the said circumstances, I have to decide whether the said cause of action could be sufficient parts of cause of action taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court in order to grant leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent by this Court, as made in A.No.762 of 2011. 10. In the said circumstances, I have to decide whether the said cause of action could be sufficient parts of cause of action taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court in order to grant leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent by this Court, as made in A.No.762 of 2011. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff had submitted in his argument that whether the causes of action mentioned in the plaint as well as the pleadings connected with those causes of action are true or not, could be decided only in a full fledged trial and not now at the stage of revocation of leave and if it is done, it would be amounting to the disposal of the suit on merits at the interlocutory stage. The judgment as cited by the learned counsel for the applicants in (M/s. Murthy Hosiery Mills represented by its Managing Partner Miller R.T. Murthy & another ..vs.. The State Bank of India represented by its Chief General Manager & another) and other citations referred by the learned counsel for the respondent should have been gone into before deciding the point at issue. The relevant passage in cited supra would run as follows:- "23. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of money, which is said to have been sent by the Administrator of the Norway Company. The said amount was credited to the Overseas Branch of the State Bank of India at Tirupur on 24.06.1998 and the same was appropriated by the 2nd respondent. The suit for recovery of money is mainly based on the credit facilities availed by them from 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent – Head Office is only said to have routed the Overseas Transaction and is said to have approved One Time Settlement. While examining the plaint averments, in our considered view, the facts averred in the plaint disclose that the entire transaction was only with the 2nd respondent." In the said judgment, it has been considered that the cause of action alleged in the said suit was not in respect of the relief sought for towards the recovery of money and therefore, the said cause of action mentioned in the suit would not be relevant to the relief in the suit and therefore, the non-grant of leave by the learned single Judge was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Now, I have to see whether the causes of action alleged to have taken place within the original jurisdiction of this Court are pointing towards the relief sought for in order to apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 11. When I go through the plaint, I could see that the causes of action alleged in paragraph No.9 of the plaint would run as follows:- "9. ...... It is no doubt true that they are entitled to do any lawful trade union activities without offending the manufacturing process or goods that are carried on in the factory premises and also in the supply of the manufactured goods from the factory units both at Yanam as well as at Karaikal and also effecting and promoting sales of the products of the plaintiff in their retail showroom outlet situate at Koyambedu, Chennai." 12. Similarly, in the causes of action paragraph, it has been stated as follows:- "11. That the cause of action for the suit arose at Koyambedu, Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this "Hon'ble Court when the company was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act I of 1956 and established its Regional Office at Chennai and subsequently, when factories were set up at Yanam and Karaikal and on various dates when they have been carried out their objects in the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and lastly in 20.01.2011 and 24.01.2011 when the workers indulged in sitting and stay in strike in the factory premises at Yanam and Karaikal and have also contemplating similar protest and strike in front of the Regional Office at Chennai and also at their registered office at Hyderabad ..........." 13. Similarly, in the reliefs paragraph, it has been requested for injunction in respect of the sales outlet of the plaintiff in front of the regional office, apart from the factory premises at Yanam and Karaikal and other sale outlets. Therefore, I could see that the pleadings made in the body of the plaint and the causes of action alleged in the cause of action paragraph and the relief sought for in the plaint are properly and cogently connected to state a cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I could see that the pleadings made in the body of the plaint and the causes of action alleged in the cause of action paragraph and the relief sought for in the plaint are properly and cogently connected to state a cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicants / defendants that the cause of action as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are not relevant to the reliefs sought for is not applicable to the present case wherein the cause of action alleged and the reliefs are relevant to each other. 14. The judgment as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff reported in 1992 (II) MLJ 376 (Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., ..vs.. M/s. Cochin Silicate & Glass Industries, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partners Mr. A.J. Shelat and another) would be relevant for consideration. The relevant paragraph would run as follows:- "2....... The words "determine suits of every description ..... , if the cause of action shall have arisen or, in case the leave of the court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction", clearly establish the right of a litigant to institute a suit on the Original Side of this Court if the cause of action would have arisen wholly within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the court. The leave of the court is required only in a case in which the cause of action would have arisen in part within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction. It is thus not possible to ignore the case of a litigant who decided to file the suit on the Original Side of the court on the plea that most part of the cause of action had arisen within the city of Madras, only on the ground that the defendant had pleaded otherwise and alleged that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Madras, but had arisen in Cochin. ......." In the said judgment, this Court has considered the requirement of application for leave to sue under clause – 12 of Letters Patent would arise when part of cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of this Court. 15. ......." In the said judgment, this Court has considered the requirement of application for leave to sue under clause – 12 of Letters Patent would arise when part of cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of this Court. 15. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (1) LW 616 (Chhogalal ..vs.. G. Ramalingam), the same principle was stressed and the leave to sue application was dismissed, since it was required for part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, but entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, such applications were held as not necessary. 16. Similar view has been expressed regarding the part of cause of action arose within the City would give rise to the filing of leave to sue petition is upheld in a judgment of this Court reported in 1992 (1) LW 277 (K. Murugesan ..vs.. Seetthalakshmi). The relevant passage would be as follows:- 6....... Besides this, there would be no difficulty in entertaining a suit under Clause 12, if the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit, dwelt or carried on business or personally worked for gain within the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The Court's special jurisdiction under its Letters Patent has been left free from some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Ss.16, 17 and 20 by S.120 thereof, for, the Letters Patent has not only fixed a territorial jurisdiction, but has in Clause 12 declared that in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land of property should be found within its territorial jurisdiction and in all other cases if the cause of action is found either wholly or in part arising within the jurisdiction of the court or the defendant is found at the time of commencement of the suit dwelling or carrying on business or personally working for gain within such territory. We do not have much guidance from the precedents of this court in the matter that we have to resolve in this case. 17. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in 1995 TLNJ 263 (Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh ..vs.. We do not have much guidance from the precedents of this court in the matter that we have to resolve in this case. 17. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in 1995 TLNJ 263 (Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh ..vs.. Brooke Bond India Ltd., Madras – 4), at page 265, it has been laid down as follows:- "In the plaint, it is stated in paragraph 18 that the cause of action in respect of copyright infringement has arisen at Madras within the meaning of Sec.61(2) of the Copyright Act, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in this Court which has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit." 18. In a judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (4) CTC 556 (M/s. Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., ..vs.. M/s. Binny Engineering Ltd.,) it has been held as follows:- "8. In a suit on contract, the making of the contract itself is a part of the cause of action for filing the suit. As already seen, in this suit, the whole of the contract was made only at Trichirapalli and no cause of action or part of it arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the leave granted has to be revoked. The applicant is entitled for the prayer sought for in this application." 19. Yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) TLNJ 257 (Sundaram Finance Limited ..vs.. M/s. The Craftsman Private Limited and another) would laid down the same principle at page No.262, which would be as follows:- " ..... Therefore, atleast with respect to one cause of action, the High Court should have original jurisdiction. .... " 20. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 392 (Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd.,) it has been categorically held as follows:- "14. Therefore, atleast with respect to one cause of action, the High Court should have original jurisdiction. .... " 20. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 392 (Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd.,) it has been categorically held as follows:- "14. A fair reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that a suit can be filed in the Original Side of the Madras High Court if the cause of action arises wholly within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court or if the defendant is a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court in its Original Side at the time of institution of the suit and in cases where the cause of action has arisen partly within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court, such a suit can be filed only after obtaining leave as contemplated under Clause 12." 21. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff, it has been found that whenever part of cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of this Court, leave should be first obtained, provided it should not be a suit for land. As already discussed, we saw that the suit has been filed for bare injunction and it is not for a suit on land. I have also discussed that the part of cause of action as alleged in the pleadings, cause of action paragraph and the reliefs sought for are inter linked with each other and therefore, on the face of the entire plaint, I could see that part of the cause of action were alleged to have happened within the original jurisdiction of this Court. The veracity of such allegations could be considered only in a full fledged trial. 22. The provisions of clause - 12 of Letters Patent should have been extracted for better appreciation:- "12. The veracity of such allegations could be considered only in a full fledged trial. 22. The provisions of clause - 12 of Letters Patent should have been extracted for better appreciation:- "12. Original jurisdiction as to suits:-And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, 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 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 that 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 the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees." 23. On a careful perusal of the said ingredients of clause – 12 of the Letters Patent, whenever parts of cause of action have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, necessarily a suit for other purpose not for suit for land or immovable properties could have been initiated in this Court with the leave of the Court obtained prior to the filing of the suit. No doubt, the plaintiff has applied for prior leave to sue under clause - 12 of the Letters Patent and this Court had considered the pleadings, cause of action and the reliefs stated so in the plaint, granted leave which cannot be disturbed, since those causes of action alleged in the plaint are in consonance with the judgments of this Court and in terms of the ingredients of clause -12 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the leave granted by this Court in A.No.762 of 2011 in C.S.No.93 of 2011 dated 04.02.2011 cannot be revoked. 24. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants / defendants seeking revocation of the leave to sue granted by this Court is dismissed. No costs.