Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order 7 Rule 11- Return of plaint
It is settled position in law that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the plaint and the plaint alone is to be looked into. From a bare look of the plaint in the present case, it cannot be said that the same does not disclose this Court to be having territorial jurisdiction. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has also not argued that even if the defendants were to be carrying on business at Delhi, this court would still not have jurisdiction over the reliefs to which objection has been taken (there being admission with respect to the relief qua infringement of registered trademark and copyright).
Since the plaint in the present case also avers of the defendants carrying on business at Delhi, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any territorial jurisdiction of this court vis-à-vis the reliefs claimed besides the reliefs of infringement of registered trade mark and copyright. This is more so in the face of the admission of the defendant of having entered into an agreement with a dealer/distributor in Delhi for sale of products in Delhi. The termination pleaded by the defendant of the said agreement is a matter of evidence. The plaintiff by entering into the agreement with a dealer at Delhi for sale of its products at Delhi, would cause passing off and breach of contract at Delhi, conferring jurisdiction on this court. The denial by the defendant of the said averments is of no avail at this stage and it cannot be said that the plaint and the documents filed do not disclose this court to be having territorial jurisdiction.