up to September 2016. The defendants 1 and 4 have also withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,05,64,100/- [ Rupees One Crore, Five Lakhs, Sixty Four Thousand and Hundred only] from the respective Banks. Particulars of the deposits are also given in para 8 of the plaint. Therefore, part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and also on a reading of the cause title in the plaint, the second defendant's residence is shown as “No.H-10, Egmore Police Quarters, Near Ganesh Travels, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Therefore, one of the defendants' residence is also at Chennai and the same is also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, is not acceptable. Further, even assuming that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, at the best, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff to re-present the plaint before proper Court, which has got the territorial jurisdiction. Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C., is very clear that on what circumstances, the plaint can be returned and Order VII Rule 10 (A) and (B) C.P.C., clearly state about the procedures to be adopted in case of return of the plaint. However, Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., does not say that
