ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.11.2021, passed below Exh. 29, in Title Suit Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation Vs. Sarine Technologies Ltd being registered as Special Civil Suit No. 191 of 2018, by which, the learned 23rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, rejected the prayer to frame the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

2. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta for Ortis Law Offices and Mr. Neeraj Grower, learned counsel with Mr. Rajat Sabu and Mr. Manan Shah, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present petition are that, the plaintiff - respondent Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No 191 of 2018, against the present petitioner – defendant Sarine Technologies Ltd, seeking damages for tortuous act of unlawful interference with the contract and business relation worth Rs.5 crore and further grant of permanent injunction against the petitioner defendant restraining them from sending interfering letters / notices to the clients and potential clients of the plaintiff.

3.1 The plaintiff – respondent is a partnership engaged in the business of advisory services and providing technologies and policy process for the Diamonds and Gemstone, having its office at Surat, State: Gujarat. The primary business is assemble and selling of inclusion scanning machinery and providing inclusion scanning and diamond polishing services to its customers.

3.2 The defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Israel having its registered office at Israel and is engaged in the business to provide diamond dealers and merchants either directly or indirectly with the best in class equipment and services for the mapping processing and trade of diamonds and other Gemstones. The petitioner defendant has developed the Adviser registered software for the use Rough Gemstone Planning Software.

3.3 Before filing the present suit, there is an ongoing suit for alleged copyright infringement filed by the petitioner against the respondent plaintiff, whereas, the another suit for patent infringement is also filed against the respondent plaintiff.

3.4 It is in these background, suit in question is being filed, inter-alia, alleging that, the letters and communications sent by the petitioner – defendant to various business in United States and India constitute threats and unlawful and tortuous interference and are illegal and further sought an permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner – defendant from circulating any notices / publications through any correspondence or in any other manner, so as to stop the Tortuous Interference in the running and contractual business of the plaintiff.

3.5 In the plaint para-42, it is specifically stated that, the Civil Court at Surat has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the suit as part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Court, wherein, other suits originated by the defendant, are being pleaded and by virtue of letter being sent by Rogers and Holland on provocation of defendant to various clients of the plaintiff based in Surat urging not to trade with the plaintiff.

3.6 The petitioner – defendant vide Exh. 7, submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, inter-alia, praying that, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, to entertain the present suit as defendant neither has its office nor carries on business within territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The alleged letters and press release was not made in India and therefore, no cause of action, as alleged or otherwise can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The learned court below vide its order dated 29.01.2019, rejected the said application. The order of the Court below