Judgment :- GOVARDHAN, J. The application has been filed by the applicants, who are the Defendants in the suit, to revoke the leave granted to sue against them, contending that this is a composite suit for the alleged infringement of both the registered Trade Mark and a Copy Right in form of artistic work and it is now a settled proposition of law that the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature is one within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged offence of infringement has been committed. It is also alleged that there is no allegation in the plaint that the applicant is selling and marketing his products any where within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and in fact the applicant does not have a single sale office, agent or distributor any where in Tamil Nadu and he does not market or sell its products any where in Tamil Nadu and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is further alleged by the applicants that the Respondents seems to create jurisdiction under Sec. 62(2) of the Copy Right Act and there is no prima facie case for any offence under the Copy Right Act in particular under Sec. 63 of the Act alleged by the Plaintiff, in the plaint to enable the Plaintiff to file the suit in this Court and hence the leave granted to file the suit in the Court should be revoked. 2. The Respondent in their counter have contended that the leave was sought for because the entirely of the cause of action was not within the jurisdiction of this Court and in view of infringing taking place in Karnataka with respect to Trade Mark registered in the Office of the Trade Marks Registry situate at Madras. The plaintiff has got part of cause of action in Madras and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in this court and this Court is also entitled to exercise its powers under Clause-12 of the Letters Patent for granting leave to file the suit. It is also stated by the Respondent that under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in whose jurisdiction they carry on business and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. 3. It is also stated by the Respondent that under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in whose jurisdiction they carry on business and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would argue that it is not the case of the Respondent Plaintiff that the applicant defendant in the suit is carrying on business of the product which is said to infringe the Trade Mark and Copy Right of the Plaintiff anywhere within the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore the leave granted to the Respondent to sue the suit should be revoked 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the Plaintiff is at liberty to file the suit within the State of Karnataka, where the products of the Defendants are being sold and which are alleged to infringe the Trade Mark and Copyrights of the Plaintiff and the balance of convenience in this case only be in favour of the defendant and the Plaintiff should have filed the suit in Karnataka and therefore the leave granted to file the suit in the High Court, Madras should be revoked. It is no doubt true that it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the products of the Defendants are not sold in the State of Tamil Nadu, but the fact that they are not sold in Tamil Nadu alone cannot be the criteria to decide whether the suit can be filed but the Plaintiff at Madras. It is to be noted that it is not case of the Plaintiff that the entire cause of action arose within the State of Tamil Nadu. But the Plaintiff's specific case is that the trade mark of the plaintiff is registered in the Office of the Registrar functioning under the Trade Mark Act at Madras and therefore, part of the cause of action arose at Madras. It is only because part of cause of action alone had arisen in Madras, the necessity for seeking the leave of the Court to file suit has arisen for the Plaintiff. It cannot be disputed that the Plaintiff has the choice of deciding whether he has to file the suit when he apprehends that there is an infringement of his trademark. It cannot be disputed that the Plaintiff has the choice of deciding whether he has to file the suit when he apprehends that there is an infringement of his trademark. The choice is that of the Plaintiff and he cannot be denied the opportunity to exercise his choice. A far as infringement of Copyrights of the Plaintiff is concerned, as per Sec. 62(2) of the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in view of the fact that the Office of the Plaintiff is situate at Madras and Sec. 62 of the Act enables the Plaintiff so file this suit where he is carrying on business. It is not necessary that the suit should be filed only in the place where the Defendant is carrying on business. The Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit where he is carrying on business also. In this connection, I wish to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Brooke Bond India Limited CALCUTTA vs. BALAJI TEA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (O.S.A. Nos 278 & 279 of 1989, Dated 25-11-1989 by Justice MISHRA (1993-PTC-40) in which this Court has held that they are in agreement with the view of the Single Judge of Bombay High Court in the case reported in BURROUGHTS WELLCOME (INDIA) Ltd. v. G. K. SHARMA etc. (1989 (1) P.L.R. 60) that the infringement of trade mark and passing off and the cause of action pertaining to the infringement Copyright arise out of the action of the defendant in selling medicinal preparations and though different causes of action arise, all these causes relate to the same action and the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of cause of action relating to infringement of copyright cause of action in respect of infringement of trade mark and passing off should be permitted to be joined in the suit. In our case also the cause of action for the suit being sale of the products of the Respondent with a trade mark which infringes the trade mark registered by the plaintiff at Madras and the Plaintiff is carrying on business at Madras. The underlying purpose is to avoid multiplicity of the suits. In our case also the cause of action for the suit being sale of the products of the Respondent with a trade mark which infringes the trade mark registered by the plaintiff at Madras and the Plaintiff is carrying on business at Madras. The underlying purpose is to avoid multiplicity of the suits. I am of opinion that the totality of the fact being infringement of trade mark as well as copyright, the leave granted by this Court cannot be said to be one which has to be revoked on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction. In that view, I am of opinion that the application for revoking the leave granted to the Plaintiff to file the suit in this Court cannot be revoked. 5. In the result, the application is dismissed. Held that the trade mark of the plaintiff being registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at the office of the Registrar functioning at Madras, part of cause of action has thus arisen at the Madras. Moreover, as per Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in view of the fact that the plaintiff's office is situated at Madras and is carrying on business at Madras. Thus, there being infringement of trade mark as well as copyright, the leave granted by this Court cannot be said to be one which has to be revoked on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction.