THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.2323 of 2024

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated 15.07.2024, in I.A.No.486 of 2024 in O.S.No.268 of 2024, passed by the IV Additional District, Ranga Reddy Distric at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Pasham Mohith Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking for return of the plaint and filing the same before the Commercial Court established by the Government.

4. The present Revision arises from a copyright dispute concerning a Telugu movie titled "Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha Vinthalu". The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.268 of 2024 praying the trial Court for grant of permanent injunction, alleging copyright violations by the petitioners.The petitioners, engaged in the movie-making business, contends that the respondent was specifically employed for developing the script for a remuneration of Rs.5,00,000/-, of which partial payment has already been made. As the movie approached its completion stage, the respondent filed the suit seeking injunction. Upon appearance, the petitioner, after reviewing the material papers, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d)read with Section 151 of CPC challenging the Trial Court's jurisdiction on the ground that the matter falls within the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. The procedural trajectory of the caseis initially, the Trial Court granted a status quo order on 03.07.2024 in I.A.No.408 of 2024 which was challenged by the petitioner through C.R.P.258 of 2024 before the High Court. Subsequently, the High Court disposed of the matter directing the Trial Court to decide the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(d)read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the suit within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 15.07.2024, dismissed the said petition, which according to the petitioners is without adequate consideration of the legal propositions regarding jurisdictional aspects under the recently amended Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner received the copy of the said order on 19.07.2024.

6. It is this order passed by the Trial Court which is under challenge in the instant Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court gravely erred in dismissing the petition for rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC as the matter inherently involves a commercial dispute concerning intellectual property rights as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Further,the learned counsel contended that since the dispute relates to intellectual property with a suit value of Rs.50,00,000/- which exceeds the specified value of Rs.3,00,000/- under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended in 2018). Thus, the jurisdiction exclusively vests with the concerned Commercial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Trial Court’s reliance on the memo of the Registrar (Judicial-II) dated 14.07.2022 is misplaced and contradicts established judicial precedents, including the principleslaid down by this High Court itself in the case of K. Sriman Narayana Murthy and Ors. vs. V.

Agastya Sagar and Ors, 12022 (1) ALT 706. However, the Trial Court also failed to provide adequate reasons for its order and overlooked the mandatory requirement that commercial disputes, particularly those involving intellectual property rights under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended in 2018) must be tried only by the Commercial Courts.

9. Per contra,