Important Point – Plaint has to be read along with documents filed by plaintiff.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. While I.A.No.5710/2016 has been filed in CS(COMM) No.76/2015 by defendant nos. 4 & 5 under Order VII Rule 10, CPC, learned counsel for the defendants in CS(OS) No.2326/2015 submitted that the plaint was liable to be returned in accordance with the judgment rendered in an identical case titled as Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal and Anr. in CS(OS) No.2550/2015.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants in both the suits stated that the plaintiff had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that defendants have their registered offices in Delhi. They further stated that the plaintiff had wrongly claimed that as decisions regarding manufacturing and marketing of the products of the defendants had been taken at the registered offices of the defendants in Delhi, hence this Court had jurisdiction to entertain or try the present suits. They also stated that as the plaintiff had no registered trademark, no suit for infringement of trademark lie.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff had no reason to file the present suits in Delhi when the plaintiff admittedly was based in Karnal, Haryana and was carrying on its alleged business activities pertaining to the alleged trademark in Haryana only. They stated that the defendants had never done any business in Delhi under the impugned trademark. They emphasised that the defendants had their distillery units in Haryana. Hence, according to them, this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits.

4. The counsel for the defendants submitted that in an identical case, being CS(OS) No.2550/2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10, CPC on the ground that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment in CS(OS) No.2550/2015 relied upon by learned counsel for defendants is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“26. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that if on a reading of the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff, it appears that defendant no.2 has a subordinate office within the jurisdiction of the courts in the State of Haryana – where the cause of action has arisen, then the suit could be brought by the plaintiff against the defendants only in the State of Haryana where the cause of action arises, and not at Delhi where the registered office of defendant no.2 is situated, unless, of course, the plaintiff is able to establish that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

27. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of the draft print out of the current status of the trademark application filed by defendant no.2. A perusal of the said print out shows that in its application, defendant no.2 has given its address as “21-M, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar-135001, Haryana”. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that on a perusal of the plaint and the documents, it cannot be said that the defendant has a subordinate office in the State of Haryana – where the cause of action has arisen, is not correct. It is well settled that while examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Court on demurrer, the Court is entitled to proceed on the basis of the case disclosed by the plaintiff in its plaint and the documents filed on record by the plaintiff.

28. I now proceed to examine whether any part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court merely because defendant no.2 takes its business decisions regarding manufacture and marketing of the impugned product at its registered office in Delhi and it maintains its books of account in Delhi, and takes its administrative decisions in Delhi at its registered office.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

31. In the present case, the fact that defendant no.2 may have taken certain decisions qua manufacture and sale of its country liquor with the im