The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's suit for infringement of copyright satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and cause of action, leading to the rejection of the defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

IA No. 3846/2011 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

1. The Defendants No. 1 and 2 have, by the present application, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). As per the applicants, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law inasmuch as the plaintiff is neither residing nor carrying on business or works personally within the local limits of this Court. As per the applicants, the plaintiff only has a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and none of the defendants are based or have any place of business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the impugned acts for which the reliefs is sought have alleged to have taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The second ground pleaded is that no cause of action has ever arisen against the defendants and the plaint does not disclose cause of action against the Defendants.

2. It is the settled proposition of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, it is only a plaint that has to be examined to ascertain whether a cause of action is disclosed or not and also whether the suit is prima facie barred by any law. The court has to look into the averments in the Plaint and the pleas and defence of the defendants in the Written Statement are not relevant for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11. (CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST AND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY VERSUS PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST: 2012 (8) SCC 706).

3. The suit of the Plaintiff is for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Jurisdiction to try a civil Suit is conferred on a court by Sections 15 to 20 of the CPC. Under Sections 15 to 20 of the CPC a civil suit can be filed at a place where the subject matter is situated, where the defendants reside or where the cause of action has arisen. Section 62 of the Act additionally confers jurisdiction on a Court within the local limit of which the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

4. The plaintiff, in the present suit, has pleaded that the plaintiff is a copyright society registered under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff has a branch office at Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In paragraph 30 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the branch office of the plaintiff is in Delhi from which it carries on business and from where the letters dated 14.12.2010 and 23.12.2010 had been issued to the defendants calling upon them to obtain the mandatory public performance licence. The plaintiff is stated to be carrying its business activity from its branch office in Delhi. The plaintiff has further stated that a substantial part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. A reading of the plaint shows that the stand of the plaintiff is that it has a branch office in Delhi from which it is carrying on its business. Further it is pleaded that a substantial part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. From reading of the plaint it cannot be said that the plaint does not satisfy the requirements of Section 62 of the Act.

6. For considering whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not it is only the plaint that is to be considered. The defence raised by the applicants is not relevant for the purposes of considering whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for failure to disclose cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. What is relevant is whether the averments in the plaint are sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court or not.

7. The Plaintiff has averred that it has a branch office in Delhi from which it carries on its business and further that a