JUDGMENT : M. Sundar, J. Captioned application has been taken out with 'Leave to Sue' ['LTS' for the sake of brevity] prayer. 2. When the captioned application was listed before this Commercial Division on 18.11.2022, proceedings were made and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows : 3. Aforementioned proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. This means that the short forms and abbreviations used in the aforementioned earlier proceedings will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. 4. As jurisdiction is inherent, 'when this Commercial Division has jurisdiction over a part of cause of action, the question is whether this Commercial Division would exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit?' is the neat question that falls for consideration in any LTS application. To be noted, it is settled law that jurisdiction is inherent and grant of leave is only an expression of the Court's intention to exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit when it has jurisdiction over a part of cause of action. In the case on hand, as regards reliefs qua infringement of trademark and infringement of copyright (i.e., first and second limbs of prayer) are concerned, Section 134(2) of 'The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'TM Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] and Section 66(2) of 'The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)' [hereinafter 'CR Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] do not come to the aid of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. As regards relief qua passing off (i.e., third limb of prayer), it is a common law action / remedy, but Section 20 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] is not applicable to this Commercial Court in the light of Section 120 CPC'. This means that when the case of the plaintiff is that, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division, the plea has to be pivoted and predicated only on Clause 12 of Letters Patent. It is in this context, aforementioned proceedings dated 18.11.2022 was made. 5. This means that when the case of the plaintiff is that, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division, the plea has to be pivoted and predicated only on Clause 12 of Letters Patent. It is in this context, aforementioned proceedings dated 18.11.2022 was made. 5. As regards grant of leave and territorial jurisdiction, a larger Bench of this Court [S. Annapoorni case being S. Annapoorni vs. K. Vijay reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4367] while deciding a reference regarding jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, had summed up the trajectory of legal history and territoriality in one paragraph and one significant paragraph in this regard is paragraph No.316, which reads as follows : '316. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel made a fervent plea that concurrent jurisdiction is being exercised for more than three and a half decades, i.e., 35 years now and therefore, it has attained the character and sanctity of a convention. It may be appropriate to not to disturb, derail or dislodge such a convention. Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel besides legal submissions made a poignant but pertinent plea that this Court should not shut the doors on helpless and hapless minor children. It may be appropriate to not to disturb, derail or dislodge such a convention. Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel besides legal submissions made a poignant but pertinent plea that this Court should not shut the doors on helpless and hapless minor children. These fervent and poignant pleas appeal to my judicial conscience and it synchronizes with legal literature, which if I were to sum up and state in one sequence of fourteen short sentences not as a Sonnet of sorts but in prosaic prose, it runs like this: (a) chronicle is, the Supreme Court of Madras (replacing Recorders Court at Madras) is of the year 1800; (b) Supreme Court of Madras was abolished by the Indian High Courts Act, 1861; (c) the High Court of Madras succeeded to all the powers and jurisdiction; (d) a new Letters Patent was issued for the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 26.06.1862; (e) on 28.12.1865, this 1862 Letters Patent was replaced with a new Letters Patent dated 28.12.1865; (f) Constitution of India which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26.11.1949 came into force on 26.01.1950; (g) Constitution vide Articles 225 and 372 kept the 1865 Letters Patent intact and it is operating; (h) therefore, it will suffice if the obtaining 1865 Letters Patent more particularly Clause 17 thereat and the question whether there is ouster in the light of Sections 7 and 8 of Family Courts Act is tested without delving into the legal history; (i) in terms of legal history, it will suffice to note that the only difference between 1862 and 1865 Letters Patents is while the 1862 Letters Patent uses the expression 'whether within or without the Presidency of Madras', the 1865 Letters Patent uses the expression 'within the Presidency of Madras', this difference also pales into insignificance as the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1970 makes it clear that there is no difficulty in reading 'Presidency of Madras' as 'State of Tamil Nadu' as rightly pointed out with surgical precision and specificity by learned counsel Ms. B. Poongkhulali and as brother Hon'ble Mr. B. Poongkhulali and as brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan has delved into and dealt with this aspect of the matter in detail, I refrain from dilating on the same to avoid duplication; (j) therefore, we are now concerned with the obtaining Letters Patent, i.e., 1865 Letters Patent; (k) Clause 17 of Letters Patent is a specific provision and exercise of jurisdiction under this provision cannot be compared with exercise of using inherent jurisdiction as a omnibus provision; (l) in 2002, by 86th Amendment to the Constitution, which came into force on and from 01.04.2010, clause (k) was added to Article 51-A which is an adumbration of fundamental duties and this clause (k) makes it a fundamental duty of every parent or guardian to provide an opportunity for education to his child aged between 6 and 14 years; (m) though this clause talks about opportunity for education, the role of parents or guardian qua a ward is a constitutional duty and is therefore sanctus; and (n) when it is so sanctus, it is a certain duty of a Constitutional Court to come to the aid of a child when there is a need and therefore, it would serve no purpose to say that the High Court, a constitutional court, is denuded of such powers.' 6. Therefore grant of leave now hinges on whether the second defendant is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. 7. Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy along with Mr. Vijay N. of M/s.Mission Legal [Law Firm] who is before this Commercial Division draws the attention of this Commercial Division to the additional typed set of papers which has since been filed on 24.11.2022 (albeit without a date). Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Commercial Division to the Google Map of North Chennai, an official map of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA], a Government Website which goes by the name 'BHARATMAPS'. A more detailed version of this 'BHARATMAPS', List of Firkas downloaded from the official website of Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, are also enclosed in the additional typed set of papers and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows : 8. Adverting to pindrop in the Google Map, subsequent maps and the schedule under 'Jurisdictional Limits Act', learned counsel submits that the second defendant is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. Adverting to pindrop in the Google Map, subsequent maps and the schedule under 'Jurisdictional Limits Act', learned counsel submits that the second defendant is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. As regards 'Jurisdictional Limits Act' learned counsel draws the attention of this Commercial Division to the northern boundary set out thereunder and the relevant part reads as follows : 'North - Commencing from the point where the boundary line between Tiruvottiyur village and Tondiarpet village meets the sea, along the boundary line between Tondiarpet village and Tiruvottiyur and Sattankadu villages to the point where Sattankadu Kodungiyur and Tondiarpet villages meet: thence in a south-westerly direction along the boundary line between Kodungiyur ...... ...... ...... ' 9. To be noted, aforementioned Act is of the year 1927 and there is subsequent 'Jurisdictional Limits Extension Act' which is of the year 1985. In both these Acts, Section 2 is of relevance and the same reads as follows : 'THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS) ACT (IV OF 1927) 2. Limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of Madras High Court - The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras shall be exercised within the limits set out in schedule : Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect any suit or other legal proceeding pending in any Court at the date of the commencement of this Act. THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) The limits within which the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exercised are as follows : East - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... South - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... West - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) The limits within which the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exercised are as follows : East - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... South - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... West - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... North - Commencing from the point where the boundary line between Tiruvottiyur village and Tondiarpet village meets the sea, along the boundary line between Tondiarpet village and Tiruvottiyur and Sattankadu villages to the point where Sattankadu Kodungiyur and Tondiarpet villages meet: thence in a south-westerly direction along the boundary line between Kodungiyur and Tondiarpet, so as to include the whole of Tondiarpet village; thence in a westerly direction along the boundary line between the villages of Perambur and Erukkanjeri to the point where Perambur, Erukkanjeri and Sembiam villages meet and proceeding west along the northern village boundary of 67 Sembiam and 66 Peravallur up to the trijunction point where 34 Madhavaram, 66 Peravallur and 65 Kulathur villages meet and the western boundary ends, so as to include the whole of Sembiam and Peravallur.' 'THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS) EXTENSION ACT, 1985 (ACT No.42 OF 1985) 2. Extension of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of Madras High Court - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1927 ( Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1927) or any other law for the time being in force, the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras shall also extend to the areas comprised in the revenue villages specified in the Schedule. THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) District Taluk Revenue village Madras (1) Fort-Tondiarpet. (1) 30 Selaivayal (2) 31 Kodungaiyur (3) 32 Jambuli (4) 33 Erukkancheri (2) Purasawakkam-Perambur. (1) 65 Kulathur (2) 71 Konnur-Malligaicheri (3) 73 Villivakkam (3) Egmore-Nungambakkam. (1) 79 Thirumangalam (2) 106 Koyambdu (3) 110 Saligramam (4) 104 Sencheri I Bit (5) 105 Sencheri II Bit (4) Mambalam-Guindy. (1) 104 Virugambakkam (2) 111 Kodambakkam (3) 103 Nesapakkam (4) 137 Velacheri (5) 138 Taramani (5) Mylapore-Tiruvalikkeni. (1) 139 Kanagam (2) 140 Thiruvanmiyur (By order of the Governor.)' 10. This Commercial Division is informed that the Registry to test territorial jurisdiction, is going by the Postal Pincodes of Madras. This is clearly not in consonance with the statute. The Registry has to necessarily go by 'Jurisdictional Limits Act' and 'Jurisdictional Limits Extension Act'. (1) 139 Kanagam (2) 140 Thiruvanmiyur (By order of the Governor.)' 10. This Commercial Division is informed that the Registry to test territorial jurisdiction, is going by the Postal Pincodes of Madras. This is clearly not in consonance with the statute. The Registry has to necessarily go by 'Jurisdictional Limits Act' and 'Jurisdictional Limits Extension Act'. It may be necessary to draw out the map. This Commercial Division is also informed that such a map was drawn earlier and the same was being followed but at somewhere down the line i.e., at some point of time that procedure was discontinued, is what this Commercial Division is further informed. 11. It may be necessary to revisit the above aspect of the matter. Registry to place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice and seek suitable orders. 12. Before concluding, it is noted that in the case on hand, the applicant has paid the entire Court fees along with intended plaint, though there is no compulsion for the applicant / intended plaintiff to do so qua an intended plaint. Therefore, this Commercial Division deems it appropriate to test Section 12A of 'CCA' post institution of the suit. It is made clear that issue of suit summons will be subject to intended plaintiff clearing the fence (to put it in equestrian terms) qua Section 12A of 'CCA'. 13. Leave granted. There shall be no order as to costs.