Gujarat High Court
Arif Abdul Kader Fazlani vs Hitesh Raojibhai Patel & on 7 March, 2013
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
ARIF ABDUL KADER FAZLANI....Plaintiff(s)V/SHITESH RAOJIBHAI PATEL & CO O/CS/1/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL SUITS NO. 1 of 2012 ================================================================ ARIF ABDUL KADER FAZLANI....Plaintiff(s) Versus HITESH RAOJIBHAI PATEL & CO & 1....Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR UNMESH D SHUKLA, COUNSEL with MR PRANIT K NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1 MR HARSHIT S TOLIA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR PARTH S TOLIA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 07/03/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Unmesh D. Shukla, learned counsel with Mr. Pranit K. Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for the plaintiff and Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, learned advocate for the defendants.
Learned counsel Mr. Shukla for the plaintiff as well as Mr. Tolia, learned advocate for the defendants have submitted suggested proposed issues. It is a matter of record that earlier by an order dated 21.8.2012 passed in Civil Application No.228 of 2012, this Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) had appointed Mr. P.B. Raval, Retired City Civil and Sessions Judge as Court Commissioner on consensus of both the parties. It may be noted that even at that time, the suggested issues were placed on record by the plaintiff. The defendants have also placed on record their suggested issues which are forming part of this record.
Today, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have submitted that considering the pleadings from the record, the following issues be framed:-
(a) Whether the patent of the plaintiff is valid?
(b) Whether the suit patent is liable to be revoked under the Patents Act, 1970?
(c) Whether the plaintiff is the true and first inventor of the suit patent?
Whether the process of the defendant infringes the suit patent?
(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages. If yes, how much?
(f) Whether the suit is barred by delay, laches or acquiescence?
(g) What order and decree?
Mr. Shukla as well as Mr. Tolia further submitted that in view of the order dated 21.8.2012 passed in Civil Application No.228 of 2012, the record and proceedings shall have to be sent to Mr. P.B. Raval who is former City Civil and Sessions Judge to enable him to record the evidence as a Court Commissioner. The Registry is hereby directed to send record and proceedings to Mr. P.B. Raval. It is made clear that the record and proceedings be sent to Mr. P.B. Raval only after the parties jointly furnish self-certified copies of the pleadings. At the cost of the parties, the parties may apply for true copies of the pleadings. It is further provided that the original record be transmitted only after the true copies are re-submitted before the Registry.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) mrp Page 3 of 3