SUNIL LULLA Vs. NIRMALA JANKI CINEMAS PVT.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of CPC has been preferred against the impugned order dtd. 10/7/2015 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mhow, District-Indore in Civil Suit No.8- B/2013, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the office bearers of M/s. Eros International Media Ltd., Mumbai engaged in the business of purchasing and distributing the films. The respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the court at Mhow, District- Indore against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the recovery of amount of Rs.74,11,600.00 on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 happens to be a limited company and are engaged in the business of commission agent in the film distribution, sale and purchase of films and they receive 2% as the commission in the process but in the present case this commission was 1.5%. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.2 and 3) produced a film "Teri Meri Kahani" which was to be distributed throughout India for which services of plaintiff was availed. The contention of the plaintiff is that he got a deal struck with M/s. Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. who agreed to purchase the film for consideration of Rs.48.00 Crores, therefore, petitioner is entitled for receiving his commission as Rs.72.00 Lacs. According to the plaintiff, the negotiation in this regard took place at various places like Mumbai, Delhi and Gaziabad and certain phone calls were also made from the plaintiff's registered office at Mhow. Hence, the cause of action has arisen at Mhow.

(3.) The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC before the Court at Mhow bcontending that no cause of action has arisen at Mhow where the office of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is situated and if at all an cause of action has arisen, the same would have arisen either at Mumbai or at Delhi. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondent No.1 by filing a reply.