BULL Vs. LEDGARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are taken in an action of damages for the alleged infringement of certain exclusive rights secured to Mr. Bull, the Plaintiff, by three Indian patents; and the whole controversy between the parties depends upon two pleas maintained by the Defendant, the late Mr. Petman, who is now represented by his testamentary executors.

(2.) IN his written statement, filed in answer to the plaint, before the District Judge of Cawnpore, the Defendant pleaded that the Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in respect it had not been regularly brought into Court, and to that plea he has adhered throughout all the subsequent stages of the litigation. The Defendant also pleaded that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Patent Act XV. of 1859, inasmuch as no particulars of the breaches complained of had been delivered with the plaint; and that, in the absence of such particulars, he could not be called upon to state a defence to the action upon its merits.

(3.) UPON an appeal by the Defendant, the High Court for the North-Western Provinces, consisting of Sir Robert Stuart, C.J., and Tyrrell, J., agreed with the Court below that the Defendant's plea of no jurisdiction was not well founded. They held, however, contrary to the finding of the District Judge, that there had been an entire failure on the part of the Plaintiff to observe the requirements of Section 34 of the Patent Act, and consequently "that the Plaintiff came into Court without any case which could possibly be tried," Being of opinion, in these circumstances, that the Plaintiff ought to be allowed another hearing on the merits, the learned Judges directed" that the plaint be amended and presented in the proper Court, viz., the principal Court of original jurisdiction in civil cases at Cawnpore, and that with the plaint the particulars required by Section 34 be duly delivered." The costs were ordered to "be reckoned as costs in the cause."