MEENA CHAWLA Vs. PRISM ENTERTAINMEN P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for treating Issue No.1 as preliminary issue and deciding the same before the suit proceed with trial on other issues.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.43,31,250.00 against the defendants. The plaintiff has prayed for passing of a decree to the extent of that amount with pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum against all the defendants. The plaintiff has further prayed for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to deal with the negatives of the film tentatively titled as "Eai Ki Sansar" and against defendant no.5 from transferring the said negatives. The defendants are contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by defendant no.1 a preliminary objection has been taken that this court has no territorial jurisdiction as the defendants neither do any business nor reside or work forgain within the territorial jurisdiction of this court nor has any part of cause of action arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that even the plaintiff lives and carries on business ordinarily in Mumbai, as such this court would have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. The issues were framed by the court vide its order dated 20th October, 2005 and on that date it was not directed that Issue No.1 relating to territorial jurisdiction, would be treated as a preliminary issue.

(3.) The applicant/defendants have filed this application subsequently with the prayer that the same be treated as a preliminary issue. The prayer in this application is that Issue No.1 be treated as a preliminary issue. The contention raised is similar that the defendants do not reside or carry on the business within the territorial jurisdiction of this court nor any part of cause of action has arisen nor the defendants had done any act so as to vest this court with territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that the cheques issued by the plaintiff were credited to Kolkata account of defendant no.l and the cheques were issued from Mumbai to Kolkata and there is no nexus to Delhi. The report of ABN Amro Bank on which reliance has been placed, has been generated at Noida in Uttar Pradesh. As such this court would, in any case, have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. No reply to this application was filed but on the strength of the plaint, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff had argued the application. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant while relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court and this court in AIR 1977 SC 2421 and Bhupinder Kamal and Another petitioners Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee respondents AIR 1980 Delhi 121 contended that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be tried as preliminary issue as contemplated under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further that the drafting of the plaint would not vest jurisdiction of a court, as the plaintiff by use of expression or language may create illusion of a cause of action. This should not be permitted to have done and the court must examine the content of the plaint to decide certain issue.