- (1.) Plaintiffs in O.S. 378/94 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam are the petitioners. They filed the suit on the averment that the plaint schedule films belong to the first plaintiff partnership firm which has the right of exhibition and exploitation of those cinematographic films. It is stated that first defendant who retired from partnership firm has no right to deal with the schedule films and he is unauthorisedly dealing with the films to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs want to restrain the first defendant from dealing with any of the films scheduled to the plaint and defendants 2 to 4 from entering into any transaction with the first defendant regarding those films. It was also averred that 4th defendant is negotiating with the third defendant regarding the exhibition of one of the films. While defendants 1 to 3 are having a place of business outside the territorial limits of Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, the 4th defendant is having place of business at Ernakulam.
(2.) Before filing the suit, he sought permission of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam under S.20(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to prosecute the suit in that Court. The leave was so sought for because defendants 1 to 3 were having their residence and place of business elsewhere. Court granted permission to the plaintiffs to institute the suit. The suit was thus entertained and taken on file. Along with the plaint, plaintiffs moved I.A.627/94 for a temporary injunction restraining the third defendant from exhibiting or exploiting any of the films belonging to the plaintiffs. Court below granted an ex parte interim injunction. On getting notice of the injunction, defendants entered appearance and objected to the order. They also raised a contention that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By the impugned order dated 21-10-1994 the learned Sub-Judge refused leave and dismissed I.A. 627/94 which was one filed for leave under S.20(b) of the Code. That order is under challenge.
(3.) When the suit was filed on 15-4-1994, plaintiff filed I.A. 627/94 seeking permission to file the suit before the Court below under S.20(b) of the Code. At that time no defendant was before Court. The Court on the basis of the averments in the plaint and the interlocutory application granted leave. Thereafter an ex parte order of injunction was issued restraining the 4th defendant from negotiating with any other defendant for the sale of any of the films scheduled to the plaint. On receipt of the notice, defendants enter appearance and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. When the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the defendants are staying outside its territorial jurisdiction, the Court should have rejected the plaint or returned it to the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper Court or dismissed the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the C.P.C. Instead of resorting to any of the above mentioned courses, the learned Subordinate Judge refused leave. The said refusal, according to learned Judge, was in exercise of the powers under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;