This article delves into the intricacies of evaluating territorial jurisdiction, with a specific focus on the importance of the content of the plaint (the legal document that initiates a lawsuit) in this determination. The case under consideration involves an application by the defendant, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for the rejection of the plaint based on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

The Defendant's Argument:
The defendant's primary argument in this case centered around the assertion that the plaintiff had invoked the territorial jurisdiction of the court solely on the basis of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, without any reference to Section 20 of the CPC. According to the defendant, this reliance on Section 134 was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, particularly because the case seemed to fall within the third category of cases, as described in the judgment of the Division Bench of the court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd Vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016 SCC OnLine Del 376).

The defendant's argument was based on the premise that the case could not be brought before the court under Section 134 alone. They contended that the absence of a reference to Section 20 of the CPC in the plaint indicated that the court's territorial jurisdiction was not properly invoked.

The Court's Interpretation:
However, the court adopted a more comprehensive approach to evaluating territorial jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of reading the plaint as a whole and in a meaningful fashion. This approach is in line with the principle that jurisdiction should not be determined by a narrow, technical interpretation, but rather by considering the entire context of the case.

The court's ruling highlighted that even if there was no specific reference to Section 20 of the CPC in the plaint, the suit could still be considered maintainable before the court if any part of the facts pleaded in the plaint disclosed a cause of action that had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the court emphasized that the mere absence of a specific reference to Section 20 CPC in the plaint should not automatically disqualify the case from the court's territorial jurisdiction.

In this particular case, the court invoked Section 20 of the CPC to assert its territorial jurisdiction based on the content of the plaint. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that justice is not denied due to technicalities in pleadings and that the essence of the case is taken into account when determining territorial jurisdiction.

The Concluding Note:
In summary, the evaluation of territorial jurisdiction is a critical aspect of legal proceedings, and it should not be overly constrained by technicalities. The content of the plaint plays a vital role in this determination, as demonstrated in the case under discussion. Courts should adopt a holistic approach and consider all relevant facts and circumstances when deciding on territorial jurisdiction, ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: R X Infotech Vs Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
Date of Judgement:29/08/2023
Case No. CS(COMM) 75/2021
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6263
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge:C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539