Judgment:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.
NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.4666 o”
18. 1-2012 M/s.
Global Impex Represented by its ProprietorRajesh Mandoth, Mysore,Karnataka M/s.
Greenply Industries Ltd.,Represented by its G.P.A.
Holder Dr.
Rama Krishna, Hyderabad.
Counsel for petitioner : Sri N.
Subba Rao Counsel for respondent : -- ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15-7-2011 in I.A.No.2009/2008 in O.S.No.55/2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge- Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.55/2008 filed by the respondent, alleging infringement of copyright.
The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii) that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause arose in respect of the defendant as shown in the plaint and (iii) that the copyright of the plaintiff was not extended and the same was not in force when the suit was filed.
The Court below dismissed the said application.
Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
At the hearing, Sri N.
Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as the petitioner does not have any branches within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court, no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit in the Court at Hyderabad and that therefore the plaint ought to have been rejected.
The learned counsel further stated that the cause title, as originally shown in the pliant, wrongly described the defendant and that the respondent failed to show that its copyright was in force at the time of filing of the suit.
I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code envisaged rejection of plaint on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) thereof.
As regards the first ground of the petitioner that the plaint is liable to be rejected under clause (a) where it does not disclose cause of action, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.
It has only pleaded that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Court.
In my opinion, the issue of the plaint not disclosing the cause of action is different and distinct from the issue relating to cause of action not arising within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted.
While in the former case, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, in the latter case, it being a question of fact to be culled out from the pleadings and evidence to be adduced by the parties, the same needs to be adjudicated in the main suit.
As such, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage.
As regards the plea of the petitioner that the defendant was not properly described in the cause title, even according to the petitioner's counsel the cause title was subsequently amended.
At any rate, improper description of the defendant does not constitute a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
With respect to the plea of the petitioner that the copyright of the plaintiff was not in force at the time of filing of the suit, this again is a question which requires to be decided in the suit itself and the same is not comprehended by any of the limbs of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code.
For the above mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, CRP M.P.No.6633/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V.
Nagarjuna Reddy Date :
18. 1-2012