Himachal Pradesh High Court
500084 vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 2 June, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
nd
ON THE 02 DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
.
OMPS No. 162 & 230 OF 2022 IN CIVIL SUIT (COMS) No. 04 of
2022
Between:
MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE
LIMITED HAVING ITS REGD.
OFFICE AT MSN HOUSE, PLOT
NO.C-24, SANATH NAGAR
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SANATH
NAGAR, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA-500018, INDIA
CORPORATE OFFICE AT MSN
CORPORATE, H. NO. 2-91/10 &
11/MSN.
rWHITEFIELDS,
KONDAPUR HYDERABAD-
500084, TELANGANA, INDIA
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY.
...PLAINTIFF.
(BY MR. B.C. NEGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR GURU
NATRAJ AND MS. SHRADHA KAROL, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
BOUDHIK SAMPADA BHAVAN,
DWARKA, SECTOR-32, PLOT 14
NEW DELHI-400037.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMA GMBH & CO. KG D
55216, INGELHEIM AM RHEIN
GERMANY
...DEFENDANTS.
(BY MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, FOR DEFENDANT NO.1
M/S ASHOK AGGARWAL AND VINAY KUTHIALA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE, WITH M/S SANJAY KUMAR, ARPITA SAWHNEY,
ATUL JHINGAN, SHILPA SOOD, PRIYANSH SHARMA, ABAY
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS
2
TANDON AND DHANANJAY SINGH, ADVOCATES, FOR
DEFENDANT NO.2)
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
.
These applications coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
By way of these two applications, filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 and Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicant/defendant No.2, has prayed for the dismissal of the r thereof, revocation petition as time barred and in the alternative for return the of the plaint.
2. OMP No. 162 of 2022, has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and OMP No. 230 of 2022, has been filed under Order VII Rule 10.
3. In OMP No. 162 of 2022, it has been averred that the non-applicant/plaintiff has filed a petition, seeking revocation of the Indian Patent Number IN 243301 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject patent"), under the provision of Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The subject patent was granted on 5th of October, 2010 and it has remained in force for more than twelve years. Plaintiff never challenged the subject patent either at the pre-grant or post-grant stage by filing opposition nor any proceedings were filed by them before the Patent Office for revocation of the grant of subject patent once it was granted. The 1 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 3 revocation petition was time barred keeping in view the fact that subject patent was granted on 5th of October, 2010 and the revocation petition was filed on 20th of February, 2022, i.e. more .
than twelve years from the date of the grant of the suit patent. It is further averred in the application that the factum of a patent application having been filed and patent having been granted to the applicant was published by the Patent Office on two occasions i.e. under Section 11(A) of the Patents Act, 1970 on 23rd of January, 2009 and under Section 43(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 on 8th of October, 2010. Both these publications provided adequate constructive notice to file objection to the plaintiff which was not done. According to the applicant, revocation proceedings could have been initiated under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 within three years from the date of grant of the subject patent and as the petition stands filed beyond the limitation period of three years prescribed under residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, the petition was clearly time barred especially keeping in view the fact that unlike for a trade mark registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 wherein the term of the trade mark runs in perpetuity, the grant of patent under the Patents Act 1970, has a limited term of 20 years.
Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the revocation petition being time barred.
4. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant while drawing the attention of the Court to the ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 4 provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, submitted that the revocation petition was liable to be rejected under the provisions of Clause(d) thereof, in view of the fact that .
the revocation petition was barred by the law of limitation. He drew the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 2(j), Section 3 and Section 29 of the Limitation Act. On the strength of the said statutory provisions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the period of limitation means the "period prescribed" for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule and "prescribed period means" the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, subject to the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 of the same, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed all though limitation has not been set up as a defence. By relying upon the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in terms of the said statutory provision wherein any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application, a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule for the purpose of determining any period of limitation. The provisions contained in 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply only in so far as to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 5Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Commercial suits were governed by the provisions of Limitation Act. He submitted that with regard to suits relating to declaration in terms .
of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation was three years to obtain any other declaration when the right to sue first accrues. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to Article 137 submitted that in terms thereof, the period prescribed for preferring any other application for which no period of limitation was provided elsewhere, period of limitation was three years as from the time when right to apply accrued. By referring to Section 2(b) of the Act he submitted that "application" includes a petition and as the revocation petition was filed beyond three years as from the date of grant of the patent, therefore, the same was time barred.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 634, titled as The Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum Versus T.P. Kunhaliumma.
2. AIR 1982 Calcutta 30, titled as Bayer Aktiengesellschaft of Leverkusen Federal Republic of Germany Versus Controller of Patents, Government of India.
3. (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, titled as State of Punjab and others Versus Gurdev Singh.
6. In addition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as no cause of action was stated to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the revocation petition was ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 6 otherwise liable to be returned to the plaintiff for the same being filed before the appropriate Court. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in terms of the contents of the plaint, all that was said as to .
why the suit was being filed before this High Court was that the direct impact of the illegal activity of threats, oral or otherwise of the applicant will directly affect the prospective business of the plaintiff in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. With regard to cause of action it stood mentioned in the plaint that a separate or specific cause of action was not required in law for exercise of statutory right available under Section 64 (1) to apply for revocation of invalid and illegally obtained patent. Similarly for the purpose of limitation it stood mentioned that the proceedings stood initiated in time since the subject matter has not ceased to subsist and another Indian Patent IN 227719 was to expire on 21.02.2022 and the applicant was continuing its habitual anti-competitive and overwhelming practices by issuing threats to various entities in India. As per to the learned Senior Counsel, these averments were not sufficient either to bring the case within limitation or to demonstrate that the plaintiff had a cause to maintain the suit or to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, prayer has been made for rejection of the plaint or in the alternative for the return of the plaint.
7. The applications stand opposed by the non-
applicant/plaintiff. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-
applicant/plaintiff has argued that the applications were not ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 7 maintainable and were liable to be dismissed. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent whether granted before or after the commencement of the Act .
was liable to be revoked on a petition of "any person interested" and as the plaintiff was a "person interested", therefore, the plaintiff had a right to maintain the revocation proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel by relying upon the definitions and interpretations as contained in Section 2 (t) of the Patents Act, 1970, submitted that "person interested" stood defined as including a person engaged in, or in promoting, research in the same field as that to which the invention relates and because the plaintiff was engaged in the same field as that to which the invention related, therefore, as the subject patent was not sustainable in law and was liable to be revoked, therefore, revocation petition stood rightly filed by the plaintiff. He further argued that the Patents Act nowhere provided the limitation for challenging a patent. He submitted that there was no provision in the Patents Act, in terms whereof, after the grant of the patent, the same mandatorily had to be assailed within a period of three years.
He further submitted that in the present case, as the subject patent was Evergreening of another Indian Patent granted to the applicant company i.e. IN 719, therefore, the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff after the expiry of the term of the Genus Patent i.e. IN 719 and the limitation, therefore, started from the said date and as from the said date the suit was within limitation. He further submitted that as the plaintiff intended to launch its product in the ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 8 State of Himachal Pradesh where defendant's company was already in business, therefore, the revocation petition stood rightly filed in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the course of his arguments, .
learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 360, titled as aloys Wobben and another Versus Yogesh Mehra and others.
2. 2022 SCC Online Del. 1040, titled as Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited and Another Versus Controller of Patents and others.
8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions earlier made and submitted that a harmonious reading of the provisions of Sections 64, 65 & 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, with the contents of the plaint clearly demonstrates that the suit was barred by limitation and that no cause of action had otherwise arisen in the State of Himachal Pradesh to maintain the suit.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the relevant pleadings.
10. At this stage itself, I will refer to the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties:-
In (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 634, titled as The Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum Versus T.P. Kunhaliumma, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
"23. The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two Judge Bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 9 (supra) and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the CPC. The petition in the present case was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one contemplated by the Telegraph Act for judicial decision.
.
The petition is an application falling within the scope of Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act."
In AIR 1982 Calcutta 30, titled as Bayer Aktiengesellschaft of Leverkusen Federal Republic of Germany Versus Controller of Patents, Government of India, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under:-
"6. In my opinion, the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 282 puts an end to the controversy regarding applicability of 1963 Limitation Act to special laws or local laws. There is no doubt that in this case Art, 137 will apply as no time limit was put by the Act itself and this application has to be made to the High Court. This application should have been made within 3 years from the date when the petitioner's right to apply vision accrued. It was not disputed by the petitioner that the relevant patent was sealed on 23-4-1977, recorded in the register on 4-6-1977 and the Patent documents were issued to the petitioner on 28-6-1977. This application made on 1-12-1980. was clearly beyond three years from the date of accrual of right to apply and is barred by limitation on the face of the application."
In (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, titled as State of Punjab and others Versus Gurdev Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
"5. These are not the only cases in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the view that there is no limitation for instituting the suit for declaration by a dismissed or discharged employee on the ground that the dismissal or discharge was void or inoperative. The High Court has repeatedly held that if the dismissal, discharge or termination of services of an employee is illegal, unconstitutional or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the Court at any time seeking declaration that he remains in service. The suit for such reliefs is not governed by any of the provisions of the Limitation Act [See: (i) State of. Punjab v. Ajit Singh, ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 10 [1988] 1 SLR 96 and (ii) State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, [1986] 3 SLR 379.] "6. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of Limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act. The .
statute of limitation was intended to provide a time limit for all suits conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, Section-2(J) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suit, appeal or application. Section 2(J) also defines, "prescribed period" to mean the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court's function on the presentation of plaint is simply to examine whether, on the assumed facts the plaintiff is within time. The Court has to find out when the "right to sue" accrued to the plaintiff. If a suit is not covered by any of the specific articles prescribing a period of limitation, it must fail within the residuary article. The purpose of the residuary article is to provide for cases which could not be covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act. The residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not otherwise provided for. Article 113 (corresponding to Article 120 of the Act 1908) is a residuary article for cases not covered by any other provisions in the Act. It prescribes a period of three years when the right to sue accrues. Under Article 120 it was six years which has been reduced to three years under Article 113. According to the third column in Article 113, time commences to run when the right to sue accrues. The words "right to sue"
ordinarily mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right to sue accrues only when the 'cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted (See: (i) Mt. Bole v. Mt. Koklam and Ors., AIR 1930 PC 270 and (ii) Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. The Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1433)."
In (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 360, titled as aloys Wobben and another Versus Yogesh Mehra and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 11"20. A corrective mechanism is also available to "any person interested", to assail the grant of a patent under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act. This is in addition, to a similar remedy provided to "any person interested", .
under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. In the above scenario, it is necessary to first appreciate the true purport of the words "any person interested". The term "person interested" has been defined in Section 2(1)(t) of the Patents Act. Unless the context otherwise requires, in terms of Section 2(1)(t) aforementioned, a "person interested" would be one who is..."engaged in, or in promoting, research in the same field as that to which the invention relates". Simply stated, a "person interested"
would include a person who has a direct, present and tangible interest with a patent, and the grant of the patent, adversely affects his above rights. A "person interested" would include any individual who desires to make independent use of either the invention itself (which has been patented), or desires to exploit the process (which has been patented) in his individual production activity. Therefore, the term "any person interested" is not static. The same person, may not be a "person interested"
when the grant of the concerned patent was published, and yet on account of his activities at a later point in time, he may assume such a character or disposition. It is, therefore, that Section 64 of the Patents Act additionally vests in "any person interested", the liberty to assail the grant of a patent, by seeking its revocation. The grounds of such challenge have already been enumerated above."
In 2022 SCC OnLine Del. 1040, titled as Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited and Another Versus Controller of Patents and others, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:-
" 16. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also observed that when provision does prescribe limitation period, the same cannot be read into the statute. relevant observations Ajaib Singh The Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited, (1999) SCC 82: AIR 1999 SC 1351, are as Reliance the learned Counsel for respondent management on the bench Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chancier Morya State Haryana (1999) 141 also no help to him. In that case the Court nowhere held that the provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act applicable in the proceedings under the Act. The specifically "neither limitation been provided nor any determine as to what shall the period limitation in such cases. However, went ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 12 on further to say "reasonable time in the cases labour demand reference dispute appropriate government to labour tribunals will be years government refuse make reference on the ground delay and latches there is explanation to the delay. We are the opinion that the .
Punjab and Haryana High Court was not justified in prescribing the limitation getting reference made or an application under Section 37C the Act be adjudicated. is not the function the court prescribe the limitation where the Legislature its wisdom had though fit to prescribe period. The courts admittedly interpret law and do not make laws. Personal views of Judges the cannot be stretched to authorize them interpret law such manner which would amount legislation intentionally left by the Legislature. The judgment the Full Bench Punjab Haryana High Court ignored the object of the Act and various pronouncements of Court as noted hereinabove and thus not good the point of applicability period limitation for the purposes invoking the Jurisdiction of the courts/boards tribunal under the Act."
17. Mr. Sethi had placed reliance upon the decision of the Calcutta Court Bayer (supra). A perusal the said shows that said case, the Calcutta High Court dealing with where the patentee itself aggrieved by order of the Patent Office, treating particular Invention as 'weedicide fixing shorter term for said patented product. The before Co Calcutta, arose of application filed Section 71 the seeking rectification of the register, not Section 64 Patents Act. Thus Court held the Limitation Act applicable decision in Bayer AG (supra) completely distinguishable from the facts the present case. This decision also placed before the IPAD, in Ajanta (supra) and was not applied to revocation petitions under Section 64.
18. Section 64 the Patents since there no limitation which is prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, this Court holds that a limitation period cannot be read it into the provisions. In the light of the above cited judicial pronouncements and the dynamic/broad definition of 'persons interested', filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person's interest either arises or continues during the life/term of the Patent. This application is thus devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed."
11. The Court shall now decide the applications in the light of pleadings, argument and the judgments referred to above.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 1312. It is necessary to mention that no reply was filed to the applications preferred under Order VII, Rule 11 and Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicant.
.
13. It is also relevant to mention that in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prayer is for rejection of the revocation petition being time barred and there is no prayer in terms of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure qua cause of action. In this view of the
14.
r to matter, this Court is not adjudicating on the issue of the plaint being liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of a cause of action.
Now, coming to the issue of limitation, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, as urged and argued on behalf of the applicant, the period of limitation for filing a revocation petition cannot be construed as from the date of the grant of the patent. In terms of the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted under Section 43 thereof and upon the grant of the patent, the Controller is mandated with the duty to publish the fact that the patent has been granted and thereupon the application, specification and other documents related thereto shall be open for public inspection. In terms of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, the term of patent shall be twenty years from the date of filing of the application for the patent. Section 64 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions contained in the Act, a patent granted before or after the commencement of the Act, may be revoked, inter alia, on a petition of any person interested.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 1415. Chapter XVIII of the Patents Act deals with suits concerning infringement of the patent. Section 104 thereof provides that no suit for declaration under Section 105 or for any relief under .
Section 106 or for infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit;
provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision. Section 107 provides for defences etc., in suits for infringement and sub-section (1) thereof contains that in an suit for infringement of a patent, every ground on which it may be revoked under Section 64 shall be available as a ground for defence.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that a patent can be revoked even on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High Court. Thus, it is clear from the scheme of statute that a patent can be revoked on a petition by any person interested or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High Court besides other grounds available in the said Section.
17. Now, Section 64 nowhere mandates that a petition for revocation by an interested person has to be filed within a specified period of limitation. In other words, there is no provision in the Act to the effect that the petition for revocation of a patent has to be filed within three years from the date of grant of the patent. Now, in this background when one peruses the scheme of the Act, one finds that ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 15 Chapter-V of the Act provides for opposition proceedings to grant of patents and in terms thereof, where an application for a patent has been published but a patent has not been granted, any person may, .
in writing, represent by way of opposition to a Controller against the grant of patent on the grounds mentioned therein and at any time, after the grant of patent but before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent, any person interested may give notice of opposition to the Controller in the prescribed manner or any of the grounds mentioned therein.
18. The above demonstrates that whereas it is specifically contained in the Act as to within what period after the grant of patent and as from the date of publication of grant of patent, notice of opposition to the Controller can be given by any person interested as per Section 25 (2), but when it comes to Section 64, no such condition is prescribed therein that a revocation petition has to be filed within a prescribed period as from the date of grant of patent/ date of publication of grant of patent.
19. In this background, one naturally has to fall back upon the provisions of the Limitation Act in general and Articles 58 or 137 thereof in particular. In fact, be it Articles 58 or 137, the period of limitation prescribed therein is three years as from the date when right to sue first accrues or when the right to apply accrues.
20. In the given facts of the present case, whether the petition for revocation has been filed within the period of limitation as from the date when right to sue accrued upon the plaintiff is a ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 16 mixed question of fact and law, which can be gone into by the Court in case an issue in this regard is struck, but at this stage, the revocation petition per se cannot be said to be hit by the provisions .
of the Limitation Act and the revocation petition, thus, cannot be rejected in the light of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is for the reason that this Court does not concurs with the contentions of the applicant that the limitation to challenge a patent by way of a revocation petition starts from the date of grant of patent.
21. Now, this Court will address the issue of return of the revocation petition in terms of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not much in dispute that on the strength of the patent, revocation of which has been sought by the plaintiff, business is being carried out by the defendant in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court is not oblivious to the fact that the patent in issue has been granted by the Controller of Patents at New Delhi, but then there is no bar that a petition for revocation of patent cannot be filed in any other Court except the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Controller of Patents. The patent so granted by the Controller of Patents is used by the patent holder throughout the territory of India and in this view of the matter, holding that such a patent can be challenged only before the Courts within the jurisdiction of which the Controller of Patents is situated, will on the one hand burden the said Courts with the revocation petition which may be filed by parties assailing ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 17 the patent and on the other hand shall exclude other Courts from exercising their jurisdiction of going into the validity of patents, on the strength of which business is being carried out within their .
territorial jurisdiction.
22. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff has the right to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the plaint is not liable to be returned under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
23. Accordingly, in view of the findings hereinabove, both these applications being devoid of merit are dismissed.
r returned
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 02, 2022
(Rishi/Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS