The court clarified that territorial jurisdiction must be based on where substantive negotiations occurred, not merely on correspondence or registered office locations.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mhow, District-Indore in Civil Suit No. 8-B/2013, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the office bearers of M/s. Eros International Media Ltd., Mumbai engaged in the business of purchasing and distributing the films. The respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit before the court at Mhow, District-Indore against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the recovery of amount of Rs.74,11,600/- on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 happens to be a limited company and are engaged in the business of commission agent in the film distribution, sale and purchase of films and they receive 2% as the commission in the process but in the present case this commission was 1.5%. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) produced a film “Teri Meri Kahani” which was to be distributed throughout India for which services of plaintiff was availed. The contention of the plaintiff is that he got a deal struck with M/s. Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. who agreed to purchase the film for consideration of Rs.48 Crores, therefore, petitioner is entitled for receiving his commission as Rs.72 Lacs. According to the plaintiff, the negotiation in this regard took place at various places like Mumbai, Delhi and Gaziabad and certain phone calls were also made from the plaintiff's registered office at Mhow. Hence, the cause of action has arisen at Mhow.

3. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC before the Court at Mhow contending that no cause of action has arisen at Mhow where the office of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is situated and if at all an cause of action has arisen, the same would have arisen either at Mumbai or at Delhi. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondent No. 1 by filing a reply.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower court without properly considering the application of the petitioner vide order dated 10.07.2015 held that the jurisdiction to try the case of the plaintiff lies at Mhow court only, as the registered office of the plaintiff is at Mhow, District-Indore and certain e-mails and phone calls have been placed from Mhow, which has also given rise to the jurisdiction of Mhow Court. He further submits that impugned order is contrary to facts and law on record as no cause of action has arisen at Mhow. The negotiations took place at Mr. Ponty Chaddhas Farm House at New Delhi thus, no cause of action has arise at Mhow and one of the defendants have ever had any negotiations or agreements at Mhow and as such nothing material has taken place at Gram Kodariya, Tehsil, Mhow. He further submits that Section 20 of CPC does not entitle a person to file a suit where he resides or has place of business.

5. Learned for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Archana Sarees, Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar Vs. M.P. Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Bhopal and others , 2010 MPLJ (Gwalior) 88 (MA No. 958/2007 decided on 19.02.2020)

6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and supported the impugned order stating that cause of action has ar