Judgment :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the order passed in Application No.3416 of 2012 in and by which the relief sought for, to revoke the leave granted earlier, was rejected. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money. Since the appellants were residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, an application was filed seeking leave. The said application was allowed by a learned single Judge, in and by the order dated 17.4.2012, on the ground that the pleadings in the plaint showed that the meeting between the parties took place at Chennai and a sum of Rs.1 lakh, towards the outstanding amount, had been paid at Chennai. 3. The appellants contended before the learned single Judge that they are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the goods were delivered at Secunderabad and, therefore, there is no cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the cause of action arises only at Secunderabad. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the documents filed by the respondent would show that a sum of Rs.1 lakh had been paid by the appellants in the bank account maintained by the respondent at Chennai and therefore, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that it is a case where the appellants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court; the entire transaction had taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the application seeking revocation of the leave granted earlier, ought to have been allowed by the learned single Judge; the learned single Judge has taken into consideration all the issues, which are not relevant for deciding the application; a mere payment alleged to have been made by the appellants in Chennai would not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal will have to be allowed. 6. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal will have to be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr.C.Manishankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the pleadings made in the plaint, regarding the cause of action, would prima facie show that a prior meeting had taken place between the parties and a payment of Rs.1 lakh, towards outstanding, had been made at Chennai. In view of the said facts, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly, the learned counsel has prayed that the appeal will have to be dismissed. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions put forth by the parties, it is useful to extract paragraph No.11 of the plaint filed by the respondent herein and the same is extracted hereunder: "11. The plaintiff states that though the cause of action arose within the Original jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in Chennai since the Defendants are residing beyond the Original Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff filed an application No.1882 of 2012 seeking leave to institute the suit before this Hon'ble Court, and by order dated 17.4.2012, this Hon'ble Court was leased to grant leave to the Plaintiff." 8. It is well settled principle of law that a cause of action constitute bundle of facts. While deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, the averments made in the plaint will have to be taken into account while deciding the application either to seek leave of the Court, or to revoke it. The learned single Judge, while granting leave, has considered the documents filed by the respondent. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that no interference is called for. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that it is well open to the appellants to raise all their contentions, including the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and the question of cause of action, as one of the issues, at the time of deciding the suit. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that it is well open to the appellants to raise all their contentions, including the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and the question of cause of action, as one of the issues, at the time of deciding the suit. It is needless to say that as and when the issues are raised and framed, the trial Court will have to decide the same, based on the materials available before it, both oral and documentary, at that relevant point of time, and decide the same, on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge, which is the subject matter of the appeal, as well as the order passed by us, today, in this appeal. No costs. MP No.1 of 2013 is closed.