Orissa High Court
M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited vs M/S. Tega Industries Limited on 3 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.R.P. No.16 of 2023
An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
***
M/s. Swagath Urethane Private Limited.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
M/s. Tega Industries Limited.
... Opposite Party.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Dr. A. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. S. Parida, Advocate.
Mrs. S. Pati, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mallick, Adv.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 1 of 12
Date of Hearing: 03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 03.04.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner (defendant-company in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned District Judge Khurda at Bhubaneswar) against the Opp. Party(plaintiff- Company in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019) praying for setting aside an Order of rejection of its petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 29.10.2022 by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
2. The Opposite Party and the petitioner of this revision being two companies are the plaintiff and defendant respectively in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 pending in the court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
The suit of the plaintiff-company vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 is a suit for damages and permanent injunction against the defendant-company alleging that, the defendant-company is manufacturing and selling their products violating the patent IN 231453 of the plaintiff-company.
CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 2 of 12 In that suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019, the defendant-company filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff-company on the ground that, as per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff- company, the defendant-company and the plaintiff-company both are the suppliers of M/s. Jindal Steel Works Limited at Bellari Karnataka. The offices of the defendant-company are situated only at IDA, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad 520062, Telengana, for which, the suit of the plaintiff-company could have been filed in the Court of learned District Judge, at Hyderabad or in the Court of learned District Judge, at Bellari, District-Bellari, Karnataka. Because, only the aforesaid two Courts have the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the suit in respect of the alleged violation of Patent Rights of the plaintiff-company as per Sections 104,105 & 106 of the Patents Act, 1970.
When, instead of filing the suit in any one of the aforesaid two jurisdictional Courts, the plaintiff-company filed the suit in the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) vide T.S. No.93 of 2016 for which, as per Order dated 12.02.2019 passed in that suit vide T.S. No.93 of 2016 CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 3 of 12 under Order 7, Rule 10A of the CPC, 1908, the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) returned that plaint vide T.S. No.93 of 2016 to the plaintiff-company along with its Vakalatnama handing over the same to the plaintiff-company to file the same before the proper jurisdictional Court. For which, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is not maintainable under law, as the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the plaintiff-company would have filed the suit either in the Court of learned District Judge, at Hyderabad or in the Court of learned District Judge, at Bellari, District-Bellari, Karnataka, then, the suit of the plaintiff-company could have been maintainable under law. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
3. The plaintiff-company objected to the said petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant stating that, the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 has been filed properly in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on the basis of an Order dated 12.02.2019 passed in T.S. No.93 of 2016 CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 4 of 12 under Order 7, Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B). Because, as per Order dated 12.02.2019 under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) had specifically directed to the plaintiff-Company to file the suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar at Khurda on dated 15.03.2019.
On the basis of the said order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) under Order 7, Rule 10A r/w section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff filed the suit on dated 15.03.2019 before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar against the defendant-company praying for the reliefs i.e. damages and injunction against the defendant-company, as the registered office of the defendant is under the jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Khurdha at Bhubaneswar i.e. at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar, wherein the defendant-company is carrying on its business.
CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 5 of 12
The said suit of the plaintiff was numbered as C.S. No.1 of 2019 in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff-company in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurdha can never be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as, the registered office of the defendant is situated at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, wherein, the defendant-company is carrying on its business. As such, when the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 has been filed in obedience to the Judicial Order passed on dated 12.02.2019 by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, then, at this juncture, the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant is not entertainable under law. The same is liable to be rejected.
4. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides and taking into account the cause title and the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff as well as the Order dated 12.02.2019 passed under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 6 of 12 151 of the CPC, 1908 by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B), the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar rejected to the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, 1908 of the defendant-company as per order dated 29.10.2022 assigning the reasons that, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 is not bad on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, as the registered office of the defendant-company is situated at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar which is under its jurisdiction, in which, the defendant-company is carrying on its business .
5. On being dissatisfied with the said order of rejection to the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant passed on dated 29.10.2022 by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1 of 2019, the defendant-company challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioner against the plaintiff-company arraying it as Opp. Party.
6. I have already heard from the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner (defendant-company) and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party (plaintiff-company).
CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 7 of 12
7. During the course of hearing of this revision, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner (defendant-company) relied upon the following decisions to assail the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
I. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheeb & Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521.
II. Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601.
III. T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467.
8. On the contrary, in support of the impugned order dated 29.10.2022, the learned counsel for the Opp. Party (plaintiff- company) relied upon the following decisions:
I. Ramesh B. Desai & Others vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Others reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638.
II. Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510.
III. Hanamanthappa & Another Vs. Chandrashekharappa & Others reported in (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 688. CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 8 of 12 IV. John Richard Brady & Others Vs. Chemical Process Equipments Private Limited & Another reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 372. V. Radhakrishna Reddy (died) & Others Vs. G.
Ayyavoo & Others reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 2068.
9. Upon hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this revision is that, Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed in C.S. No.1 of 2019 by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar rejecting the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC of the defendant-company for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff-company is sustainable under law?
10. It is well evident from the cause title of the plaint of the plaintiff-company that, the registered office of the defendant company is at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar, which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.
As per Section 20 of the CPC, 1908, the suit of the plaintiff is entertainable in a Court, within whose local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 9 of 12 carries on business or personally works for gain or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:
I. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2014 (II) OLR (SC) 587 that, a suit must be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.
11. The plaintiff-company has instituted the suit vide O.S. No.01 of 2019 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on the basis of the specific direction through a judicial order passed by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) in T.S. No.93 of 2016 as per Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908.
For which, it cannot be held that, the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has no territorial jurisdiction to admit the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 for its adjudication.
That apart, it is also forthcoming from the cause title of the plaint of the plaintiff-company in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 10 of 12 that, the defendant company is carrying on its business through its registered office at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar, which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, for which, on that ground, it cannot also be said that, the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has no territorial jurisdiction to admit the suit for its adjudication.
So, the question of interfering with the impugned order through this Revision filed by the petitioner(defendant-company) does not arise.
12. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner (defendant-company) to assail the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 indicated in Para No.7 of this Judgment have become inapplicable to this revision for the reasons as discussed above.
13. When it is held that, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioner (defendant-company), the same must fail.
14. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant- company) is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party (plaintiff-company).
CRP No.16 of 2023 Page 11 of 12
15. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 03 .04. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK CRP No.16 of 2023 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Page 12 of 12 Cuttack, India.
Date: 04-Apr-2025 14:13:11