(Prayer:- Application filed to revoke the leave granted to the Plaintiff in A.No.788 of 2026 order dated 16.02.2026.)

1. The present Application has been filed to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff in A.No.788 of 2026, dated 16.02.2026.

2. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Arul, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondent had instituted a suit for recovery of monies under various invoices which had been issued pursuant to the supply of materials to the applicant. He would submit that many of the invoices are beyond the period of limitation and that apart, he would submit that the applicant being a resident outside the jurisdiction of the Court had been sued before this Court without an iota of cause of action that arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He would submit that the respondent had mischievously invoked the Provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act in seeking leave of this Court to sue the applicant. He would further submit that a reading of the plaint itself would indicate that it is the husband of the respondent who had visited the applicant at Tuticorin for receipt of payments and also dealt with business related issues.

4. When that being so, the claim of the respondent is that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court is wholly a tailored cause of action. He would further submit that supply for materials at Chennai alone cannot give rise to cause of action to institute the suit. In that regard, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati Vs Shree Distributors, Hyderabad reported in 2010 SCC Online AP 706. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sulphur Mills Limited Vs Dayal Fertilizers Pvt.Ltd., reported in 2020 (8) MLJ 544 to also raise the issue of forum convenience. Hence, he prays this Court to revoke the leave granted by this Court.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.Bijai Sunder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that, firstly the claim of the applicant by picking and choosing the averments in the plaint to claim that there is no cause of action before this Court is wholly misconceived. He would submit that the respondent is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and it was the applicant who had approached the respondent/plaintiff for supply of materials and the materials have been supplied from Chennai.

6. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arcadia Shipping Limited Vs Tata Steel Limited and Others reported in 2024 (9) SCC 374 to contend that a cause of action arose at Chennai as the supply order has been placed in Chennai. He would further submit that the payments were made to the account of the respondent at Chennai which amounts to payment at Chennai. These aspects have also been pleaded so in the plaint. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (5) LW 838 in support of his contention that when a part of cause of action arose at Chennai, there is no impediment to institute the suit at Chennai. He would further rely upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 2014 (2) LW 575 to contest that the plaint alone should not be read in isolation and the suit documents also should be read along with the plaint and when the same is done, the invoices issued by the respondents at Chennai would clearly indicate that the supply of the materials had been made from Chennai which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court giving rise to a part of cause of action. Hence, he seeks that there is no necessity for revoking the leave as prayed for by the applicant.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

8. The plaint had been presented before this Court on a cause of action of supply of materials from Chennai which has been supported by the invoices produced as plaint documents along with the plaint. Even though, the averments had been made in the plaint that it was the plaintiff’s husband who had visited Tuticorin for business transactions and also for receipt of payments, it is to be noted that the payments have been made by the defendant to the account of the plaintiff which is being maintained at Chennai.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant, the plaint ought not to be read in isolation but also have to be read along with the plaint documents. In the present case, the plaint averments also indicate that a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the documents filed along with the plaint supports such averment. The judgment relied upon by the respondent/ defendant also indicates that the supply order placed at the place would also be a part of cause of action. In that regard, the invoices issued by the respondent/ defendant at Chennai would indicate that the goods were supplied from Chennai which gives rise to a part of cause of action.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.