MOTI FILMS Vs. KAILASH SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 331.419-89 due under an agreement dated 9.8 80 in respect of a inotion picture 'Pratishod'. When the suit was registered it was observed on the application of the plaintiff seeking interim relief (LA. NO. 56/84) that the Court was not satisfied that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of Clause 11 of the aforesaid agreement between the parties. On this ground interimerelief was declined to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed an application being LA, 4121/84 praying that before they are required to file their W/S is ,ue regarding jurisdiction of this Court be decided first. There was opposition to this application. By order dated 17.8.84 1984, this application of the defendants was allowed and the following preliminary issue was framed "Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit :

(2.) I have heard the arguments on this issue. Perhaps, the wording of issue was not correct. It should have been `whether the agreement dated 9.8.8O bars jurisdiction of this Court.' This would be so as it cannot be denied that Delhi Courts have jurisdiction in the matter and so also the Courts in Madras, where the agreement is stated to have been executed. Clause 11 of this agreement is : In the event of any dispute arising in between the party/s hereto in (he respect of any of the provisions of the agreement the courts in Madras City alone shall be deemed to have the jurisdiction over such dispute". Moti Films Vs. Kailash Saraogi

(3.) It cannot be disputed that the claim in the suit is based on the agreement dated 8.8,80. The agreement was between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 represented by defendant No. 1 As to how defendants No. 3 and 4 have been impleaded as parties, Mr. P.C. Khanna, learned counsel for the plaintiffs referred to para 2 of the plaint saying that defendant No. 1 wes also carrying on the business in the names of defendants No. 3 and 4.