ORDER

The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer C.S. No.683/2021 from the Commercial Court, Kozhikode to the Additional District Judge-V, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, which is relevant for determination of the transfer petition is that, he is the plaintiff in the O.S No. 41/2021(Annexure 1) filed against the respondents 2 to 5 before the Additional District Judge-V, Ernakulam. He has along with suit filed I.A No.2/2021, seeking an order of temporary injunction. The court below has passed Annexure 2 order in his favour. The petitioner is the founding partner of M/s Harmony Videos. The second respondent is associated with Malayalam movie industry and the producer of Malayalam movies under the banner, Nandanam movies.

The respondents 3 to 5 are the entities/persons engaged in exploitation of the rights of movies through various forms using the internet as a basic medium. They hold internet platforms. The second respondent has produced three Malayalam movies, named, Mudra, Thaniyavarthanam and Sooryamanasam. The movies were released through the theatres and have copy rights on different aspects. The second respondent has the ownership and the original copy right over the movies. Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act (in short ‘Act’) deals with assignment and the mode of assignment, respectively. It is a legal requirement under the Act that an assignment should be in writing. The petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a written agreement of assignment as provided under the Act. The petitioner has understood that the second respondent has given a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, alleging that the petitioner has infringed his copyright. The petitioner has contacted the Hill Palace Police Station, Tripunithura, and explained his position. The petitioner has learnt that the second respondent wants to confer his rights on the respondents 3 to 5. The second respondent has suppressed the fact that he has assigned his rights in favour of the petitioner. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed Annexure 1 suit. Now, the first respondent has filed C.S. No.683/2021(Annexure 3) against the second respondent and respondents 6 to 8 before the Commercial Court, Kozhikode. He has also filed I.A. No.2/2021 (Annexure 4) for an interim relief. A reading of Annexures 1 and 3 would indicate that both the suits are for enforcement of copyright. As Annexure 1 was filed first, it would be just and convenient to transfer Annexure 3 from the Commercial Court, Kozhikode to the Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam, so that the suits can be consolidated and jointly tried. Moreover, the respondents 3 to 5 are residing in Ernakulam. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to the respondents if the suit is transferred to the Additional District Court -V, Ernakulam. Hence, the transfer petition.

3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the transfer petition. He has, inter alia, contended that the transfer petition is not maintainable and there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner to seek for transfer in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co. [1979 (4) SCC 358]. The two suits arise out of two distinct causes of action and are based on two independent assignment agreements. The parties to the suits are also different. It is only the second respondent, who is common in both the suits. There is no inter lapping of causes of action. The second respondent has assigned the same movies to several entities. The transfer petition is groundless and may be dismissed.

4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the transfer petition. It is specifically contended that the assignment agreement dated 07.12.2000, relied on by the petitioner, is forged. The second respondent has g