PARSVANATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. PARSHWANATH REALTY PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Parsvanath Developers Limited, Petitioner, original Defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court may issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 9, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 26 in Regular Civil Suit No. 785 of 2006 and to reject the plaint or be pleased to direct the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad to reject the same. This petition was filed on 30.1.2007.

(2.) ON behalf of the Petitioner - original Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) Shri S.B. Vakil, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. R.R. Shah, learned advocate, appears. On behalf of the Respondents - original Plaintiffs Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Y.J. Trivedi, learned advocate, appears.

(3.) 1A. After the aforesaid order was passed, to appears that the original Defendant filed an application on 16.6.2006 under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Exh. 26). In the said application averments were made that the Defendant has its Head Office and Registered Office at New Delhi and branch office in various cities of India. The Defendant has neither any office in Gujarat nor has it commenced any construction activity in Gujarat. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that a 'passing off' action is governed by the provisions of Section 134(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which provides that suit for passing off to be instituted. The element of jurisdiction in the said suits is governed by the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is their case that the Plaintiffs have assumed jurisdiction only on the basis of a news article pertaining to the Defendant. In view of the advertisement published it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs have cause of action to file Civil Suit in Ahmedabad. However, it is their case that neither the Defendant actually or voluntarily resides at Ahmedabad nor has commenced any construction activity in Gujarat. In these circumstances the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Suit. It was stated that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant either in whole or in part. The Defendant has prayed for the following relief: