Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), challenging the Order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-05), South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi (herein referred as the ‘LD. Trial Court’), in CS(COMM) No.72/2024, titled Nilesh Girkar vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited & Ors., by which the learned District Judge has rejected the suit filed by the appellant herein, by observing as under: “Cause of Action had further arisen when the work of the plaintiff was included in the movie but no credits were given to him for the same, nor any compensation was paid to him. Thus, if the movie was telecasted/broadcasted by defendant no. 1 with a separate and independent understanding with its producers and directors, that per se would not be termed as giving rise to or extending an existing cause of action qua the present plaintiff as well, as has been claimed in the present case by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit as filed before this court is without any cause of action and thus same is rejected in terms of provisions of Order 7 rule 11(a) CPC, as it has failed to disclose any cause of action having arisen in favour of the plaintiff within the territorial limits of this court.”

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said court, inasmuch as the respondent no.1 was maintaining an interactive website and mobile app offering the content, inter alia, of the movie in question on a paid subscription basis.

3. In support of his plea, he places reliance on the Judgments of this Court in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, and in Tata Sons Private Limited vs. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968.

4. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has also erred in holding that merely because there was no agreement between the appellant and the respondent no.1, the cause of action had not arisen. He submits that the cause of action in the present case was based on the infringement of the copyright in the literary work of the appellant as well as the unauthorised use of the literary work in a cinematography film produced by the respondent no. 2 and being telecasted on the platform of the respondent no.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 maintained that the cause of action, if any, had arisen for the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai, where the appellant had even initiated the pre-institution mediation. The parties are also residents of and work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai. They submit that, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that, in fact, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the appellant and, therefore, the suit has rightly been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. Having perused the Impugned Order, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court, in the Impugned Order, has erred in mixing the jurisdiction of the Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The jurisdiction of the Court, in the two provisions, is different. While under Order VII Rule 11of the CPC, a plaint can be rejected for the grounds mentioned therein, including that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is for the return of a plaint when it is instituted in a Court lacking territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same.

9. In the present case, while making certain observations on the nature of the cause of action that has been pleaded by the appellant, the learned Trial Court eventually rejects the plaint by observing that no part of the cause of action has arisen in favour of the appellant within the territorial limits of the said Court. This would be an exercise of power under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, in which case the plaint should be returned rather than rejected.

10. Keeping in view the above, we set aside the Impugned Order and remand the matter to the learned Trial Court to consider the questions afresh after hearing the learned counsels for the parties.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. It would be for the learned Trial Court to determine the same after hearing them.

12. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 06th March, 2025.

13. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J FEBRUARY 7, 2025/ab/kp/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any