LAWS(P&H)-1961-7-10

DHARAM DATT DHAWAN Vs. RAM LAL SURI

Decided On July 26, 1961
DHARAM DATT DHAWAN Appellant
V/S
RAM LAL SURI BY RAMESH SURI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, confirming that of the trial Court holding that the Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction to try the present suit and returning the plaint for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction.

(2.) The plaintiff and one Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had compiled a book entitled 'A New Method Matriculation Geometry' and on 21-12-1937 the plaintiff and his co-author entered into a publishing agreement with the defendant-firm (Messrs. Ram Lal Suri and Sons) at Lahore in respect of the said book. According to this agreement, the copyright in the book remained with the authors and the defendant-firm had to publish the same by paying a royalty of 21 per cent on the first edition and 25 per cent on the subsequent editions every year, calculated on the gross sale proceeds of the book sold by the end of each calendar year. The defendant-firm agreed to pay the royalty amount separately to each author, the accounts whereof were to be rendered by the end of December every year and the payment of royalty amount was to be made in the month of January every year. The parties were residing at Lahore, where accounts up to 31-12-1946 had been, rendered by the defendant-firm. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-firm had failed to render any accounts in respect of the period commencing from 1-1-1947 till the period the defendant-firm carried on its business in Lahore. Consequently, a suit for rendition of accounts was brought in Delhi, because according to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff at Delhi in January 1949, where accounts were demanded by him and where the defendant-firm now resided and carried on its business.

(3.) The defendant-firm resisted the suit and raised a preliminary objection that it being a displaced person, residing and carrying on Business at Ambala, and the cause of action, if any, having arisen in Lahore, the Delhi Courts had no Jurisdiction to by the suit.