The plaintiff must make out a case that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court to establish the maintainability of the suit.

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. By way of these two appeals, the appellant assails two orders passed on 7th October, 2016 and 23rd January, 2017 on the same application bearing I.A.No.12660/2016 in CS(OS)No.458/2016. Inasmuch as the challenge rests on identical question of law and the second order is in continuation of the first, we have taken both of these appeals together for consideration and are deciding the same by this common order.

2. The respondent herein, on or about 8th of September 2016, filed a suit being CS(OS)No.458/2016 on the Original Side of this court seeking permanent injunction and declaration making the following prayers :

“(A). The defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from creating impediments I the broadcast of the advertisement of the plaintiff which is the subject matter of the present suit and filed at page…. of the documents filed with the present plaint;

(B). This Hon’ble Court declare that the advertisement of the plaintiff as filed at page …… of the documents filed with the present plaint is fair and truthful and does not constitute a violation of any advertising laws or code and the plaintiff is entitled to broadcast the advertisement throughout the country;

(C). Pass an order of permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from entertaining or adjudicating upon any complaint(s) against the advertisement of the plaintiff filed at page …. of the documents filed with the present plaint;

(D). A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the impugned order dated 24th August, 2016 from its website;

(E). Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff; and

(F). Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be allowed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

3. It is an admitted position that the appellant before us was the sole defendant in the suit. The appellant describes itself as a company registered with the Registrar of Companies under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 having its permanent office in Mumbai. It is further stated by the appellant that it is a not-for-profit company founded in the year 1985 as a “voluntary self-regulating body for the advertising industry”. Amongst its other functions, the appellant submits that it “looks into complaints received by consumers and offers its recommendations to bring the advertisement in conformity with law.”

4. It appears that the appellant has framed what is couched as the “Advertising Standards Council of India Code” (“ASCI Code”). It has also framed “Consumer Complaints Council Rules” (“CCC Rules”) which are concerned with examination of the complaints against its members.

5. The suit of the plaintiff was inter alia premised on the following averments :

“3. It is most humbly submitted that directions issued by the Defendant have been passed without following the due process of law. The defendant is company registered under the Company Act, 1956 and claims to be a self-regulatory voluntary organization of the advertising industry. Even though the plaintiff is a member of the defendant organization, such arbitrary orders passed by the defendant in complete disregard to the law of the land and principles of natural justice have left the plaintiff with no option but to file the present suit. The defendant has however directed the plaintiff to “ensure compliance” with its decision “across media including TV, Print, Digital Media etc. as applicable prior to the due date” i.e.9th September, 2016. There is an implicit threat that the Defendant shall be submitting its compliance report to the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and other government/regulatory bodies including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

4. It is submitted that the defendant has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 24th August, 2016 without application of mind and the same cannot have sanction of law. By way of the said order a complaint against