Disposed¶51

Gautam Bhattacharya v. Mrs. Shumita Deb

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025RP/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Territorial jurisdiction; review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Sections 19 and 20 CPC; cause of action; paragraph 44 of plaint; sale of books in Bengaluru; Durga Pooja season; concession in W.P.No.16140/2024; MFA No.6128/2024 (CPC); Issue No.5; temporary injunction; no error apparent on face of record; Karnataka High Court, single judge H.P. Sandesh; decided 11.03.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:10354.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of, with the clarification that observations made while disposing of MFA No.6128/2024 shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. ¶51

Gautam Bhattacharya Vs Mrs. Shumita Deb — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition disposed of, with the clarification that observations made while disposing of MFA No.6128/2024 shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the order dated 23.11.2024 in MFA No.6128/2024 — that the sale of books in Bengaluru and connected aspects had not been disputed by the respondents — are erroneous, warranting review so that the petitioner may raise the territorial-jurisdiction issue afresh on merits. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

There was a specific pleading in the plaint (paragraph 44, cause of action) regarding sale of the book in Bengaluru, and this Court in MFA No.6128/2024 answered the point affirmatively, holding that the Trial Court committed an error in concluding there was no territorial jurisdiction; coupled with the concession regarding circulation and sale of books recorded in W.P.No.16140/2024, the impugned observations therefore stand.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The question of reviewing the order dated 23.11.2024 as sought by the petitioner does not arise, since there is no error on the face of the records except the observation of 'no dispute'.

¶50

Key takeaways

It is made clear that if any observation was made by this Court while disposing of MFA No.6128/2024, it shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits — i.e., the jurisdictional issue is left open to be raised afresh before the Trial Court.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order dated 23.11.2024 in MFA No.6128/2024 (CPC), whereby this Court had held that the Trial Court erred in finding no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit (Sections 19 and 20 CPC considered). The petitioner contended that observations in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the MFA order — that the sale of books in Bengaluru (including during the Durga Pooja season) and connected articles had not been disputed by the respondents — were erroneous, as he had in fact disputed the very sale in Bengaluru. The respondents relied on the plaint's paragraph 44 plea of cause of action (specific pleading of sale of books in Bengaluru) and on the concession regarding circulation and sale of books recorded in W.P.No.16140/2024. The Court held there was no error on the face of the record except the observation of 'no dispute'; the review petition was disposed of, with a clarification that observations made while disposing of the MFA shall not influence the Trial Court's consideration of the matter on merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2025 IN

¶8

MFA NO.6128 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

GAUTAM BHATTACHARYA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT 3A EE 23, SECTOR II, SALT LAKE KOLKATA - 760 091.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUMAN K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MRS. SHUMITA DEB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O. MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB RESIDING AT NO.402 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN HRBR, 2^ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶16

MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O K.R. DEB HUSBAND OF MRS. SHUMITA DEB RESIDING AT 402 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN HRBR, 2^ND BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶18

MS. LAHAMA BHATTACHARYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT 3A, EE 23 SECTOR - II, SALT LAKE KOLKATA – 760 091.

¶19

M/S. DEEP PRAKASHAN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 209-A BIDHAN SARANI, KOLKATA-700 006 REPRESENTED BY MR. SHANKAR MANDAL.

¶20

M/S. KALPANA OFFSET PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 123, TARICK PRAMANICK ROAD, KOLKATA-760 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶21

M/S. ABP PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6 PRAFULLA SARKAR STREET, KOLKATA-760 072 REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

M/S. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4^TH FLOOR A - WING, MATULYA CENTRE SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PARCEL (WEST) MUMBAI-400 013. REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶23

ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SHANTINIKETAN BUILDING 8 CAMAC STREET, 13^TH FLOOR KOLKATA-700 017.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶25

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

¶28

SMT. B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶29

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED IN MFA NO.6128 OF 2024 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This review petition is filed praying to review the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by this Court in MFA No.6128/2024 contending that the findings related to territorial jurisdiction were contrary to the material available on record and admissions made by the respondents.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶37

The main grievance of the counsel for the petitioner that this Court in MFA No.6128/2024 made an observation in paragraph 24 while considering the Point No.1 that when the books were sold in Bengaluru that too during Durga Pooja season, people including Bengalis will attend who are residing in Bengaluru and having contact with the appellants since the appellants are residing in Bengaluru since 1994. The counsel would vehemently contend that further observation made that all these aspects have not been disputed by the respondents. This observation is erroneous since the petitioner has disputed the very selling of book in Bengaluru and hence, this Court has to review the said order. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 27 of the said judgment with regard to finding on invoking of jurisdiction of the Court and the Court has to take note of public domain in which the book was sold and also articles were circulated in Bengaluru but the said fact has not been taken note of by the Trial Court. The counsel referring paragraphs 24 and 27 would vehemently contend that this observation

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶40

goes against him and contend that he may be permitted to raise the issue with regard to the jurisdiction is concerned while considering the matter on merits.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶42

respondents files the statement of objections to this review petition and brought to notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16140/2024 wherein discussions made in paragraphs 3 and 4 that the concession was given with regard to selling of books in Bengaluru is concerned while arguing the matter and same is observed and now, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold regarding sale of the books in Bengaluru. The counsel also would vehemently contend that this Court, in detail discussed with regard to the jurisdiction is concerned taking into note of the paragraph 44 of the plaint with regard to the cause of action wherein specifically pleaded regarding sale of books in Bengaluru and hence, it does not require review the order as claimed by the petitioner.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶45

the respective parties, it discloses that this Court while considering the issue involved between the parties formulated the point while considering the MFA No.6128/2024 that whether the Trial Court committed an error while answering Issue No.5 as affirmative holding that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and whether temporary injunction requires interference. This Court while answering this point taken note of pleading of the plaintiff and the defendant as well as taken note of Section 19 and 20 of CPC with regard to cause of action is concerned. In paragraph 24, no doubt, an observation is made that all these aspects have not been disputed by the respondents but the very contention of the review petitioner that this observation is erroneous since the respondents have disputed the same. But while making such observation, this Court has taken note of the fact that when the books were sold in Bengaluru that too during Durga Pooja season, people including Bengalis will attend who are residing in Bengaluru and having contact

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶48

with the appellants since the appellants are residing in Bengaluru since 1994 and there was a pleading in the plaint particularly in paragraph 44 while mentioning the cause of action with regard to the sale of book is concerned. But the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that not admitted with regard to the sale is concerned but the counsel for the respondents also brought to notice of this Court the observation made in the W.P.No.16140/2024 referred supra while disposing of the same that he has given concession with regard to the circulation and sale of book not only in Calcutta but also in other places and same will not affect the merits of the case while considering the case of the review petitioner as contended by him. When there was a specific pleading with regard to the sale of book is concerned and this Court also answered the point as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there was no territorial jurisdiction to file a suit. Thus, question of reviewing the order as sought by the petitioner does not arise as there is

¶49

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10354 RP No. 2 of 2025

¶50

no error on the face of records except the observation of no dispute. However, it is made it clear that if any observation is made by this Court while disposing of MFA No.6128/2024 shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. With this observation,

¶51

the review petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶53

Gautam Bhattacharya v. Mrs. Shumita Deb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Bhattacharya v. Mrs. Shumita Deb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjunatha.S Vs Sri Niranjan Yadav.C

Sri B Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Amrutha R Vs Sri Sandesh R Gowda @ Sandesh R

Sri L Mallari Rao Vs State by

Smt. Mahadevi K Bhandari Vs Smt. Shobha @ Thriveni

Smt. Druthi Umesh Vs Mr. Kiran Kumar