A jurisdiction clause in a contract does not bar a suit if the entire cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court.

ORDER :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

By this application, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint, both on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and on the ground that the suit is barred by law.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant referred to Clause-7 of film assignment agreement dated 12.09.2022 between the plaintiff and defendant and submitted that the said clause provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai in respect of disputes between the parties. By further stating that the plaintiff has challenged the validity of this clause merely to justify the circumvention thereof, he contends that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

3. By also referring to the termination clause in the above mentioned assignment agreement, learned counsel submits that the remedies of the plaintiff are specified therein and that the remedies prayed for in the suit and interlocutory application do not fall within the scope of the agreement.Therefore, he contends that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.

4. In response, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and that, therefore, parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise does not possess jurisdiction. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd., and another V. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 in support of this proposition.

5. Order VII Rule 11, CPC reads, in relevant part, as under:

''11. Rejection of Plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.''

6. In order to succeed under clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the defendant should establish that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The suit is for recovery of an alleged debt of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only), alleged damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only), and to declare clause-7 of the film assignment agreement dated 12.09.2022 as null and void.

7. The plaintiff has pleaded as under in paragraph Nos.9,12 and 14 of the plaint:

''9. The Plaintiff states that, in view of the constant delay and disinterest shown by the Defendant in the project, the Plaintiff tried contacting the Defendant on several junctures requesting him to return the consideration amount paid by the Plaintiff upon the execution of the agreement along with the interest. Additionally, a notice dated 08.03.2024 ("Notice") was addressed to the Defendant terminating the agreement as per Clause 5.1 of the agreement and consequently calling upon the Defendant to refund the sum of Rs. 1,00,00000/- (Rupees One crore only) paid as consideration under the Assignment Deed along with an interest of 30% per annum from the date of payment till the date of receipt of the same. However, the Defendant has failed to acknowledge or reply to the notice and has not complied with the Plaintiff's request. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant has wantonly avoided the messages, calls and notices from the Plaintiff to evade repaying the amount.

....

12. The Plaintiff states that he had engaged with various technicians and made commitments based on the agreement with the Defendant. The Defendant's failure to perform his obligations had caused incalculable loss. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek damages against the Defendant and the Plaintiff val