MANMOHAN SHARMA Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application moved under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking return and rejection of the plaint on the ground that Civil Court at Amritsar qua passing off Trademark in a suit seeking infringement, rendition of accounts, much less, copyright did not have the jurisdiction.

(2.) In support of his aforementioned submissions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 53 and 54 of the plaint and as well as, corresponding paragraphs of the written statement to contend that opinion formed by the trial Court vis-a-vis admission of the petitioner qua carrying of the business at Amritsar is totally misplaced. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1, the alleged registration application bearing No.865401 dated 13.7.1999 referred to in paragraph 53 of the plaint, where there is no mention showing any intention carrying his business under the Trademark "MOHAN'S" in Amritsar. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following case laws which read thus:-

(3.) Similarly by referring to the judgment rendered in Paragon Rubber Industries's case , he has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 14 and 15 to contend that it is the averment in the suit which has to be seen. From the averment made in the instant suit, it is evident that the plaintiff has filed a composite suit which would not be maintainable unless the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same in relation to the entire cause of action and entire relief. To similar effect judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Lakhan Pal Shyam Kumar's case and Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.'s case .