Karnataka High Court
Gautam Bhattacharya vs Mrs. Shumita Deb on 11 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
RP No. 2 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2025
IN
MFA NO.6128 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
GAUTAM BHATTACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT 3A
EE 23, SECTOR II,
SALT LAKE
KOLKATA - 760 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMAN K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. SHUMITA DEB
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M W/O. MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.402
COURT OF 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
KARNATAKA HRBR, 2ND BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 034.
2. MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O K.R. DEB
HUSBAND OF MRS. SHUMITA DEB
RESIDING AT 402
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
HRBR, 2ND BLOCK
KALYAN NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
RP No. 2 of 2025
3. MS. LAHAMA BHATTACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT 3A, EE 23
SECTOR - II, SALT LAKE
KOLKATA - 760 091.
4. M/S. DEEP PRAKASHAN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 209-A
BIDHAN SARANI,
KOLKATA-700 006
REPRESENTED BY
MR. SHANKAR MANDAL.
5. M/S. KALPANA OFFSET PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
123, TARICK PRAMANICK ROAD,
KOLKATA-760 006
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. M/S. ABP PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6
PRAFULLA SARKAR STREET,
KOLKATA-760 072
REPRESENTED ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
7. M/S. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR
A - WING, MATULYA CENTRE
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG
LOWER PARCEL (WEST)
MUMBAI-400 013.
REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
SHANTINIKETAN BUILDING
8 CAMAC STREET, 13TH FLOOR
KOLKATA-700 017.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
RP No. 2 of 2025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 AND R2;
SMT. B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
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.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
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.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
3. 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
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
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.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
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
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
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
NC: 2025:KHC:10354
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,
the review petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
