City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain copyright claims per relevant statutory provisions.

1. These appeals are by the plaintiff and they arise out of two suits for damages, injunction and other reliefs in respect of an alleged infringement of the plaintiff's copyright against the defendants.

2. The suits have been dismissed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on the preliminary ground that the suits were not entertainable by the said court.

3. The short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the learned Judge of the Court below was right in his aforesaid view.

4. The suits in question were, obviously under S.62 of the Copyright Act and, under that section, such suits have to be instituted in the "district court having jurisdiction" vide sub-sec. (1). For the meaning of the expression "District Court" one has to turn to S.2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure , and, on the question of jurisdiction, the immediately relevant sections will be S.19 and S.20 of the Code. The Copyright Act , in sub-sec. (2) of S.62, contains an extension of this jurisdiction.

5. It is clear from the above that, in order that the City Civil Court would be entitled to entertain the present suits under the above law, it must be a "district court having jurisdiction" within the meaning of the above sub-section (1), read with or in the light of S.2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant jurisdictional provisions, as mentioned hereinbefore. The immediate enquiry, therefore, will be whether the City Civil Court would, in the instant case, satisfy the above test.

6. There is no dispute that the defendants here are residents within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court so as to attract S.20 (a) of the Civil Procedure and make the said Court the proper forum under that section for institution of the present suits, if the said Court is otherwise competent for the purpose. Same would also be the conclusion under the provision for extended jurisdiction, as contained in S.62 (2) of the Copyright Act , as the plaintiff here carries on business within the said local limits.

7. The point, therefore, will be whether the City Court can be held to be "the principal civil court of original jurisdiction" for the aforesaid purpose within the meaning of S.2 sub-section (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure .

8. It is obvious that, under S. 5 of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act , the instant suits, being of value, less than Rupees 50,000/-, would be entertainable only by the City Civil Court under sub-section (2) of the said S.5 to the exclusion of all other courts, including the High Court. In the circumstances, the City Court may well be regarded as "the principal civil court of original jurisdiction" for purposes of the instant suits within the meaning of S.2, sub-section (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure .

9. In the above view, the Calcutta City Civil Court will be "the principal civil court of original jurisdiction", within the local limits of which the defendants of the instant suits reside and the plaintiff also carries on business. That court, therefore, will be the appropriate court and the proper forum for entertaining and trying the present suits, it being, for that purpose, the "district court having jurisdiction", within the meaning of S.62 (1) of the Copywright Act, satisfying, as it does, the relative tests under S.2 (4) and 20 of the Code.

10. The matter, considered above, may also be looked at from another point of view to lead to the same result. Prior to the Calcutta City Civil Court Act , this High Court, in its original jurisdiction, would have been the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, with