SBCMA No.1386/2008
Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors.
1
SBCMA No.1386/2008
Bajrang Lal Agarwal
Vs.
M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 24.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge
the order of the court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur
passed in Civil Original Suit No.121/2008. By this order
dated 19th Sept., 2008 instead of rejecting the plaintiff’s-
appellant’s plaint,the trial court returned the plaint for
presentation before the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10
CPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the
suit impleading five defendants. Defendant no.5 alone is
having its place/residence/business within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court below at Jodhpur. Against this
defendant no.5, no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in
SBCMA No.1386/2008
Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors.
2
the suit. As per the plaint averments also there appears
that there is no grievance of the plaintiff-appellant against
the defendant no.5. The plaintiff received one notice from
the defendant no.1 through his counsel dated 27.8.2008
asking plaintiff not to sell the goods purchased from
defendant no.5 in Raniwada, Bheenmal and Sanchore,
which are in the District of Jalore and not in the District of
Jodhpur. There are reference of litigation between the
parties with respect to the commodity in question – Langar
Bidi’ and orders passed by the Bombay High Court,
Rajasthan High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court. Be it as it
may be, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for
presentation in proper court on the ground that neither the
parties are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court, Jodhpur nor the cause of action accrued in the
territory of Jodhpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant purchased the goods from the dealer of Langar
Bidi in the Jodhpur and, therefore, the cause of action
accrued to the plaintiff for filing suit within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Jodhpur over which the court below has
SBCMA No.1386/2008
Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors.
3
jurisdiction. It is also submitted that even if there is a joint
owner of any trade mark then the joint owner of the trade
mark can do the business and other party can purchase the
goods from the said party and after purchasing the goods
from the dealer,he can sale the goods to anybody in the
course of trade. It is submitted that the total cause of
action accrued within the territory of District Jodhpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions
of Section 24,30 and 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in
support of his contention.
It appears and rightly appeared from the reasons
given in the impugned order of the trial court dated 19th
Sept., 2008 that the trial court has very specifically
considered all the aspects of the matter and particularly,
the fact that against defendant no.5, there is no relief
claimed and if his presence is ignored then all the
defendants i.e., defendants nos. 1 to 4 are not residing or
carrying on business within the territory of Jodhpur as per
the pliant allegations. The plaintiff was asked to not to do
business within certain areas of District Jalore. Therefore,
the plaintiff was asked not to do business in the Jalore,
SBCMA No.1386/2008
Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors.
4
which is the area outside the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Therefore, none of the cause of action accrued to the
plaintiff-appellant within the territory of the Jodhpur.
There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial
court. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-