Clause 14 of the Letters Patent does not require that one of the causes of action should have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court.

JUDGMENT - Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.J.:---Admit. Counsel for respondent No. 1 waives service. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant gives up respondent No. 2 and states that in fact, the suit itself will be withdrawn against respondent No. 2 and his client would take such appropriate separate proceedings against the said respondent as may be permissible in law. Considering the nature of the controversy, learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions and submit that the appeal be finally disposed of at this stage itself.

2.The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filled by the appellants complaining of violation of copyright under Copyright Act, 1957, as also infringement of trademark and passing off. The appellant has its office at Mumbai and it carries on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent is carrying on business at Chennai. It is not in dispute that in regard to violation of copyright which the appellant/plaintiff has alleged in the plaint, this Court has the jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 62(2) of the Copyright Act which, unlike other enactments, gives right to a plaintiff to institute the suit within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff carries on business or personally works for gain.

3.In view of claims in the plaint about the infringement of trademark and passing off, the appellant filed an application under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent seeking leave of the Court to combine the cause of action relating to copyright and the cause of action relating to infringement and passing off. The leave has been declined by learned Single Judge. In terms of the impugned order, learned Single Judge has held that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Learned Single Judge has opined that Clause 14 provides that leave can be granted by this Court for joinder of causes of action provided one of such causes of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Clause 14 reads as under:

"14. And we do further ordain that where plaintiff has several causes of action against a defendant, such causes of action not being for land or other immovable property, and the said High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the said High Court to call on the defendant to show cause why the several causes of action should not be joined together in one suit, and to make such order for trial of the same as to the said High Court shall seem fit."

A bare reading of the aforesaid clause shows that the accrual of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is not contemplated to permit joinder of causes of action. Clause 14 only contemplate that this Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action to permit two separate causes of action being combined together in one suit. The learned Single Judge has, however, come to the conclusion that if right to sue has been conferred by an act of Parliament and it is because of conferring of such right that a suit can be maintained, then it cannot be said that the right to sue is pursuant to Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court as conferred by the Letters Patent. It has been also observed that the expression "original jurisdiction" has been used to distinguish it from the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.

The aforesaid are the brief facts under which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. We may now notice some judgments relevant for decision of the point in issue. A Division Bench of this Court in (Tukojirao Holkar v. Sowkabai)1, reported in A.I.R. 1929, Bombay, Page 100, while considering Clauses 12 and 14 of the Letters Patent and the provision of Order 2, Rule 3 and 4 Civil Procedure Code, has held that what is relevant is that one caus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document