( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21. 2. 1995 made in I. A. 6521/94 in Suit 2640/93. The I. A. was filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 7,rule 10a and 11 Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint or for return of the same for presentation to the proper Court for want of territorial jurisdiction at Delhi. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, allowed the said application in part holding that the High Court at Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs through their counsel for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10a (1) CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) THE 1st plaintiff is Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi and the 2nd plaintiff is Prof. U. K. Srivastava, resident of Ahmedabad. The defendant is the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The appellants filed the suit for declaration that the anonymous letter dated 29. 6. 1992 referred to in the plaint, the defendant committee s reports dated 17. 8. 1992 and 28. 9. 1992 were arbitrary, void and unenforceable and that the plaintiffs should have a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to withdraw the aforesaid anonymous letter and the reports mentioned above, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree against the defendant for Rs. 5,01,000 with 24% interest from the date of suit.

( 3 ) THE 1st plaintiff is a publishing house of books and has its office at New Delhi. The 2nd plaintiff, Prof. U. K. Srivastava is a co-author along with Mr. G. V. Shenoy and Mr. S. C. Sharma of a book entitled "quantitative Techniques for Managerial Decisions". The 1st plaintiff claims that the copyright for the said book vests in the 1st plaintiff, while the 2nd plaintiff and two others abovementioned are the authors of the book. The defendant is a reputed educational institution at Ahmedabad. The 2nd plaintiff is an employee of the defendant for about 20 years.

( 4 ) IT appears that there was an anonymous letter dated 29. 6. 1992 addressed to Mr. Devender Singh, SAC Coordinator of the defendant alleging that the above book published by the 1st plaintiff had simply lifted material from three other books by Baumol, Levin and Wagner without giving any references to the said foreign authors. Though the 1st plaintiff had published the book co-authored by the 2nd plaintiff in 1983, the anonymous letter came up in 1992. The defendant then wanted to conduct an investigation into the professional conduct of the 2nd plaintiff and had,therefore, appointed a committee which gave its report dated 17. 8. 1992 (Annexure-B to the plaint ). Then the 1st plaintiff publisher wrote on 27. 8. 1992 to the defendant (Annexure-C) expressing concern at the possible consequences of the defendant attempting to comment upon the questions of plagiarism and intellectual property rights in the said book which vested in the 1st plaintiff. The committee set up by the defendant gave its report and an article about the same was published in the "gujarat Samachar" on 2. 9. 1992. The 2nd plaintiff in his letters dated 6. 6. 1992 and 11. 9. 1992 (Annexures D and E) denied that there was any plagiarism or copying by authors of the book. Thereafter, the committee appointed by the defendant gave a further report on 28. 9. 1992 (Annexure-F) and therein, according to the appellants, made comments on the intellectual property upon which the 1st plaintiff had certain rights. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the reports of the committee dated 17. 8. 1992 and 28. 9. 1992 and raised various questions in the suit. The plaint further states that the defendant is threatening to take punitive action against the 1st plaintiff as is evident from the minutes of the meeting of the committee dated 5. 1. 1993 (Annexure-G), and that the 1st plaintiff had sent a legal notice on 4. 2. 1993 (An