M.Saravanan v. M. Kumaran

A.No.1622 of 2022 & CS.DR.No.35026 of 2022 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., This application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant leave to institute the suit in respect of the plaint B schedule property, which is situated out side the jurisdiction of this Court, whereas, plaint A schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the present application has been filed before this Court to grant leave to sue the plaint B schedule property. 2.The learned counsel for the respondent /defendant has raised common objection for granting leave to sue in respect of B schedule property on the ground that part of cause of action arose in respect of B schedule property situated out side the jurisdiction of this Court. 3.On a perusal of the reliefs sought for in the suit and upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, it is clear that plaint ''A'' schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Both 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., dn the applicant as well as defendant are also within the jurisdiction of this Court and only B schedule property is situated out side the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant leave to sue in respect of ''B' schedule property.

4. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application and also considering the submissions made by the learned for the applicant/plaintiff, this Court feels it appropriate to grant leave to the applicant/plaintiff to sue in respect of B schedule property, which is situated out side the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Accordingly leave granted and this application is allowed. 30.06.2022 dn A.No.1622 of 2022 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis