28. As already pointed out, Section 6 is not at all applicable to suits of specified value filed before the Commercial Division at High Court. Further, Section 16, 17 and 20 are not applicable to the High Court in the light of Section 120 of C.P.C. Furthermore, the Letters Patent, which is unique and special to the Chartered High Court of Madras, cannot by given a go-by in the light of the subsequent legislations, which does not carry any inconsistent provision to that of Letter Patent to override its requirement. Here the principle of Harmonious Construction has to be applied. Hence, in this case, going by plaintiff's own document, there is no evidence to show that the cause of action wholly or partly arose within local limits of this Court. The place of plaintiff's Office at Chennai will not per se confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Unless, the defendant carry on business at Chennai. An address of defendant at Chennai is not sufficient to infer the defendant is carrying on business at Chennai. Either way, in the instant case in view of the leave to sue is required. Since no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court even according to the documents filed along with the plaint and no document to support the plea, the defendant carrying on business at Chennai. Contrarily, the plaint documents indicates, the defendant was operating at work site, Kalpakkam, which is outside the limits of this Court.
