Vinod Goel, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2016 passed in Suit No.888/2016 by the court of Ld. Additional District Judge-3, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ("ADJ") by which the plaint was ordered to be returned to the appellant/plaintiff to be presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The facts leading up to the filing of the Plaint are that the respondent no.1 being the producer of the film "BETI No.1" assigned its' copyright to the appellant under the "Articles of Agreement of Transfer" dated 16.01.2004. The said agreement provides that no person other than the appellant shall be entitled to do any act in respect of the said film. The appellant claims to have become the exclusive owner of the copyright of the said film in terms of Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

3. A public notice was issued in "Complete Cinema" on 05.11.2016 by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 informing the general public that it had acquired the exclusive rights regarding the said film from the respondent no.1. The appellant sent a letter dated 08.11.2016 informing the respondent no.2 that he is the sole owner of all rights in respect of the said film in terms of the "Articles of Agreement of Transfer" dated 16.01.2004 and that the Respondent no.2 should not acquire or deal with any right qua the said film. In its' reply, the respondent no.3 stated that the said notice dated 05.11.2016 was issued by the respondent no.2 on behalf of the respondent no.3 and vide Deed of Assignment dated 02.11.2016, the respondent no.1 had assigned its rights in the said film.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the impugned order was not based on the correct appreciation of facts and law. He argued that the agreement dated 16.01.2004 has already been implemented and there is nothing left to be done under the agreement and the appellant has become the exclusive owner of the copyright of the said film and clause 12 of the agreement restricting the jurisdiction to the Mumbai Courts is no more relevant.

5. He contended that the right to file a suit for infringement of the copyrights is conferred under section 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 which entitles the plaintiff to file a suit where he resides or works for gain and not by Section 20 of the "CPC".

6. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia and others, (2015) 10 SCC 161 and this court in International Film Distributors vs. Shri Rishi Raj, (2009) 2 ILR(Del) 652.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is based on the correct appreciation of facts and law.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The thrust of the arguments made by the respondents was based on Clause 12 of the Article of Agreement of Transfer dated 16.01.2004 between the Appellant and the Respondent no.1, which prescribes "in the event of disputes arising between parties hereto in connection with any of the clauses or covenants herein the Courts in Mumbai alone shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and try such disputes."

10. Here, it would be prudent to refer to Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957:

"62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter -

(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.

(2) For the purpose of sub section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose