Order 1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant for permanent injunction praying inter alia that they be restrained from infringing their trademark, for passing off, dilution of trademark etc. 2. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that after entering appearance, she had filed the written statement, wherein one of the preliminary objections taken by the defendant No.1 was that this Court is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.03.2010, fourteen issues were framed and the first issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court was taken up for arguments in the first instance. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment of the plaint, registered as I.A. 6309/2010, which was heard and allowed vide order 18.11.2011. While allowing the said application, M/s Priority Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No.2. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant No.1 had filed an intra court appeal, registered as FAO(OS)36/2012 that was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 09.01.2013 and the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 was set aside. The plaintiff had challenged the decision of the Division Bench by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, registered as C.A. 4912/2015. 4. Counsels for the parties state that the aforesaid appeal was heard and decided by the Supreme Court alongwith Civil Appeal No.10643-10644/2010 entitled Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia and Anr. Vide judgment dated 01.7.2015, the Supreme Court had dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and held that the Delhi Courts would not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It was observed that the principal place of business of the plaintiff being in Mumbai and the cause of action having arisen in Mumbai, provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act could not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi courts. 5. In this background, counsel for the plaintiff requests that the plaint be returned to hum for being presented before the competent court vested with the territorial jurisdiction, namely, the Bombay High Court. 6. 5. In this background, counsel for the plaintiff requests that the plaint be returned to hum for being presented before the competent court vested with the territorial jurisdiction, namely, the Bombay High Court. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the name of the defendant No.2 is directed to be deleted from the array of defendants and IA No.4846/2012, an application filed by the said defendant, for being dropped from the proceedings is allowed. 7. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the Bombay High Court. 8. As both the parties are present, it is deemed appropriate to fix a date for the appearance of the parties before the Bombay High Court. With the consent of the parties, they are directed to appear before the Bombay High Court on 07.8.2015. 9. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.