Dismissed

M/s. Kaveri Seeds Company Ltd. v. M/s Pioneer Oversees Corporation

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022CRP/2095/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition by the defendant in a suit for infringement of a registered maize variety, challenging rejection of its plea under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. The High Court found a cause of action disclosed and the suit not barred by Section 89 of the plant varieties statute, and dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Kaveri Seeds Company Ltd. Vs M/s Pioneer… — Intellectual Property | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[/ONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2095 OF 2021

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by^the Order date 17-11-2021^passed in l.A.No. 1052 of 2019 in O.S.No. 589 ol 2012 on the file of the lll Additional Chief^judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

I\rlls. Kaveri Seeds Company Ltd, Having its regd. Office at 5138, 5th Floor, I,4inerva Complex Office, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad-500.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Ivl/s Pioneer Oversees Corporation, Having its office at P.O. Box 1000,^Johnston lA 50131-0184 and lndian Registered Office a B-1, Greater Kailash Enclave, . Part ll, New Delhi,-1 1048 , and Branch Office at BabukhanMillenium Centre.^lll Floor, 6-3-1099/1 100, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-082

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.589 of 2012 on the file of the lll^Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad^pending the disposal of the above^Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. V M M CHARY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI DT.VENKAT REDDY^{DONTHI REDDY}

¶17

The Court made the following : ORDER

.,'^G

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN CI/IL REVISION PETITION No.2O95 OF 2O2L

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Mr. Abhishek Saketh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

This petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Ill Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.1052 ol 2019 in O.S.No.589 of 2012.

¶25

It may be mentioned that respondent herein as the piaintiff has filed a suit under Sections 65 and 66 of the Protection of Plant Varieties ald Farmers Rights Act, 200 1 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908

¶26

(C.P.C) seeking the following reliefs :-

¶27

¶28

"In the light of the aboue facts and circumstances, lt is therefore humbly praged that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree:

¶29

i. granting permqnent injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, employees, offi.cers, seruants, agents a.nd all others acting for and on

¶30

¶31

their^{behatf from. maKing' selting'' distibutirug'} d in^ana ng fo^{r"s ale'} ^a'n a du erti^sirq' "^{*o on'n'} Zi;;;";'";;u,'a,on"/is"i;ii{::;:y,:,:"fr'trfl ,*t#Z "-ffi maize^{uaietg b",on^:,^,-^.,} tnatte,r of the "^plainttffs 11 t registered t, hich^{i n} fnns :0,_!'^{e s,n"'.i (Io^no,} ;:;; ;;;"'JJ!' seling. i,or" 1i"i aistibiting,^"y "' 5i'!,;,,^[i'1r,,#it""ii"nn"s"ion:,\or"'^andinanv other manne''^{direcllg"'J' iniii"'tty'dealing} '<sup>''"^ "r' l' i. ri' i, ii'' z ii x^{s s' in" r e b s a m ou nli n s t o p a s s Lns} plant uanetu^30807; off of^{the PtainttJl t} 'i)it'"iia

¶32

i1. Consequentlg^{restrain the Defellants'} e nt s^theirand dir^{e ct o r s,} raT "^{*pto a " ) "i''i1"" 1: t' s e r u a nt s'}

¶33

;t;";;;;';;"1;s.i,?:::**T,"T"f'J,,i!;,n{{;ft ]::;::Y,":!"of;tr:::;i,5i':i5;rx;'i::"*'orMaize ' EZ' ; propnelary " ;az^germpt:sIII y _ :*i ^r-- t^.':", : l;; :i1 i,,.;"ii "y;,iI: arud ZliLZ,'?i denuing1 i;;o:M)^{oi uai'e (Zea maYsL) Ya::ta'('} unjust^{enichment o' iZi'it"' in thi uaietg KMH'} 25K55;

¶34

s'urrender for *'o

¶35

lll Consequently^{direct the Defendant} 'to Z;;;;;;"^{Ltt tn"} ii;iit#;:l;'X;;;:' under^{the uanetY den}

¶36

lU. AuLqrddam:r::?IX';i!'ort;f.o-3',-l"J:":::"ily:f " ptaintiff on! os_1':t,rr" and misappropnation d 'hz,"i;f:':"iiJ,Zi"o"ii"^i'"i""'is'o:so7rx'1280M) of rw"i" Eea^{maas L);}

¶37

U Any^order for^{renditionof accounts;} Antt olher^{relief as stipulated und3r^Section 66 of}

¶38

UL. ini^{protectionof rtaii,;;;;aand F^armersRighfs} ';:;,';"0;;';LueiattY'^{jointtYor Qs a uhote:}

¶39

v11. Cost^{of the suit;"}

¶40

¶41

3.1. The said suit was registered as O.S.No.SB9 of 2Ol2 and is pending on the file of III Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hvderabad.

¶42

Respondent has also filed an injunction petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C for injuncting the defendant from making, se1ling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and dealing in the Maize variety KMH-25K55, directiy or indirectiy which infringes respondent's registered 30807 variety till disposal of the suit. The same was registered as I.A.No.2225 of 2012.

¶43

Petitioner who is the defendant in the suit has filed objection to I.A.No.2225 of 2Ol2 to which respondent has filed reply affidavit.

¶44

Be that as it may, petitioner as the defendant has filed written statement in O.S.No.589 of 2O),2.

¶45

It is stated that as on date no order has been passed on ' the injunction petition

¶46

During pendency of the suit, delendant (petitioner) filed a petition under Order VII Rule 1 I C.P.C for rejection of

plaint. It^{was contend'ed that there was no cause of action to} file the suit^{for infringement againstthe registered variety,as} the defendant^{(petitioner) has a registeredvarietyenjoying} statutory^{protection under the Protectionof PiantVarieties} and Farmers^{Rights Act,2OO1 (briefly.the 2001 Act,} hereinafter).^{It was also contendedthat under Section89 of} the 200^{1 Act there is a clear statutory bar on civil courts} initiating^{action on ailegedinfringement of registered variety'} The said^{petitionwas registered as I'A'No'1O52of 2Ol9'} Respondent^{(plaintiff) fiied counteraffidavit to I'A'No'1052of} 2019 contending^{that the suit was maintainable'Petitioner} filed reply^{to such petition'By the impugned order dated} 17.ll.2o2l^{learnedCourt below declinedtoacceptthe} contention^{of the petitioner and dismissed the petition filed} for rejection^{of plaint' While disposing the petition filed for} rejection^{of plaint,Iearned court below noted that while the} plaintiff's^{variety was registered on 07'O3'2O11 ' defendant's} variety^{was registered on 16'08 '2012t'e'' 9 days after Iiling of} the suit.^{Therefore,on the date of filing of the suit defendant} had no^{registrationwith respect to its variety'}

¶51

9 Hence, the^{civil revisionpetition'}

¶52

¶53

)

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated lT.lL.2O21 has extensively referred to va-rious provisions of the 200 I Act, and submits that in terms of Section 24 thereof petitioner's variety was deemed to have been registered on 03.08.2010 i.e., two years prior to filing of the suit. Petitioner's variety was published on 03.05.2010 and was not opposed within the time stipulated under Section 21 of the 2001 Act. l'hus, on expiry of the stipulated time variety of the petitioner would be deemed to have been registered. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that issuance of registration certificate is only a formality being a ministerial act. Thus, learned Court below had committed a manifest error in taking into consideration the date of registration as 16.0g.2o12 after institution of the su1t.

¶55

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's variety \.'as registered, and it enjoys ail the statutory rights provided under the 2OO1 Act. Civii Court cannot curtail such right of the petitioner unless registration is revoked or cancelled which can only be done by the Registrar.

¶56

¶57

¶58

L2. Learned^{counselhas referredto relevant portions of the} orderdatedlT.Ll.2o2|andsubmitsthatonmostasPects Iearned court^{bel0w had concurred with the contentionof} the petitioner. Despite^{the same an abrupt view was taken} that the variety of^{the petitioner was registered after} institution of the^{suit and as such, the suit would be} maintainable.^{He submits that the suit in its present form is} not maintainable until^{such time a decisionis renderedby} the Registrar^{r-rnder Sections34 and 36 of the 200 1 ActIn} any view of the^{matter,the suit in its present form is not} maintainable in^{view of bar ol jurisdiction under Section89} of the 200 1 Act.^{In this connection, he submits that} respondent's application^{for cancellationof registrationof} petitioner's variety is^{pendingbefore the Registrar;Registrar} is competent to take^{a decision one way or the other under} Section 36 of^{the 2OO1 Act. On the same issue there can be} no adjudication^{by the civil Court. All these aspects were over} looked by the learned^{court below while rejecting the petition} filed by the^{petitioner for rejection of plaint'}

¶59

l3.ontheotherhand,learnedcounsellortherespondent has referred to^{various portions of the plaint and submits}

¶60

¶61

¶62

therefrom that the^{plaint must be read as a whole and so} read the plaint clearly shows^{that there is cause of action for} institution of the suit^{and that there is no statutory bar for} such institution. He submits^{that the suit has beenfiled} seeking permanent injunction^{restraining the defendant from} making, se1ling, offering for^{sa1e, distributingthe hybrid} variety of Maize KMH25K55^{which infringes the plaintiff's} hybrid variety of Maize 30807.^{The suit is also instituted} against such action of^{passingoff besides other reliefs.He} has also referred to^{paragraph No.30 of the plarntwhere} submissions/ averments^{relating to cause of action are made'} He submits that defendant^{had Iiled the petition under Order} VII Rule 11 C.P.C very belatedly^{i.e., 7 years after institution} of the suit. Therefore, the^{same was rightly dismissed by the} Court below.

¶63

Learned counsel for the^{respondent(plaintiff) submits} that as on the date of institution^{of the suit, plant variety of} \ the defendant KMH-25K55 was^{not registered. Therefore, the} suit for infringement of^{plaintiff's plant variety by the} defendant is clearly maintainable.^{Cancellation or revocation} of certificate of registration^{of the defendant by the Registrar}

¶64

¶65

¶66

is one aspect^{and infringementof mark of the plaintiff by way} of passing off^{by the defendant is another aspect' Plaintiff} has not sought^{forcanceilation orrevocationofthe} registration certificate^{of the defendantwhich is within the} purview of the Registrar.^{Therefore, the bar of Section89} would not be^{applicabie to the present case' There is no} provision for deemed^{registrationunder the 200 1 Act' Such} contention of^{the petitioner (defendant) is whollyuntenable'} Registration of^{the defendant's plant variety was made after} filing of the suit.^{As on the date of filing of the suit'} defendant's^{plant variety was un-registered'}

¶67

Adverting^{to the provisionsof Order VII Rule 1i C'P'C'} learned counsel^{for the respondent submits that no case was} made out for^{rejection of plaint' Therefore' learnedcourt} below was^{justified in rejecting such petition Iiled under} Order VII Rule 1i^C.P.C.

¶68

Submissions^{made by learned counsel for the parties} have received^{the due consideration of the court'}

¶69

)

¶70

t7 At the outset^{we may advert to relevantprovisions of the} 200 1 Act which^{has been enactedtoprovide for the}

¶71

¶72

establishment of an effective^{system for protectionof plant} varieties, the rights of^{farmers and plant breeders and to} encourage development^{of new varietiesof plants' Objective} of the 2OO1 Act is to^{recognize and to protect the rights of the} farmers in respect of their^{contribution made at any time in} conserving, improving and^{making available plant genetic} resources for the development^{ofnew plant varieties'} Moreover, to accelerate^{agriculturaldevelopmentitis} necessary to^{protect plant breedersrights tostimulate} investment for research and^{development forthe} development of new^{plant varieties. Such protection is likely} to lacilitate the^growth of^{the seed industry which will ensure} the availabiiity of high^{quality seeds and planting material to} the farmers. India, having^{ratified the agreement of trade} related aspects of Intellectual^{PropertyRights, had to make} provision for giving effect to such agreement.^{To give effect to} the aforesaicl objectives, the^{200 I Act has been enacted.}

¶73

\ 18. Chapter III of the^{2OO1 Act comprisingof Sections 14 to} 23 provides for registration^{of plant varieties and essentially} derived variety. As^per Section^{21 (1) once an application for} registration is made, the^{Registrar,shall, on its acceptance}

cause such application to be advertised in^{the prescribed} manner caliing for objections from interested^{persons. Under} Sub-Section (2) of Section 21 of the^{200 1 Act such objection} may be made within three months from^{the date of} advertisement. The grounds on^{which objectionmay be} made are mentioned in Sub-section^{(3). As per Sub-Section} (4), the objection received by the Registrar shall be forwarded to the applicant, who shali, within two^{months on receipt of} such objection, send to the Registrar^{a counter statement on} which he relies. If he fails to do so,^{he shall be deemedto} have abandoned his apptication.^{On the other hand, if the} applicant sends counter statement,^{the Registrar shall take a} decision one way or the other^{after complying with the} principles of natural^justice.

¶78

Chapter IV deals with duration and^{effect of registration} and benefit sharing. As^{per Sub-section (1) of Section24 of} the 2001 Act, when an application^{for registrationof a variety} has been accepted and either the^{application was not} opposed or the time ol notice of^{opposition has expired, or} the application was opposed but the^{oppositionwas rejected,} the Registrar shall register the variety. Upon^such

¶79

¶80

registration, the Registrar^{shall issue to the applicanta} certificate of registration^{in the prescribedform under Sub-} Section (2).

¶81

Sub-Section^{(1) of Section 28 of the 2001 Act says that} subject to the other^{provisions of the 200 1 Act, a certificate of} registration for a^{variety issuedunder the 2001 Act shall} confer exclusive right^{on the breeder or his successor, his} agent or licensee, to^{produce, seli, market, distribute,import} or export the variety.

¶82

Chapter V deals with^{surrenderand revocationo[} certilicate and rectification^{and correction of register.Section} 34 which forms^{part of Chapter-V deals with revocation of} registration on certain^{grounds. It says that subject to the} provisions contained in the 200^{1 Act, the protection granted} to a breeder i.n respect of^{a variety may on an application in} the prescribed manner of^{any personinterested be revoked} by the Authority, on the^{grounds mentioned there under'} 'Authority' has been defined under^{Section 2 (al to meanthe} Protection of Plant Varieties^{and FarmersRighfs Authoritg} established under Sub-Section^{(1) of Section3 of the 2001} Act.

¶83

¶84

¶85

The power to^{cancel or change registration and to rectify} the register is^{provided in Section 36. As per Sub-Section(1),} on an application^{made by any person aggrieved,the} Registrar may make such^{order as he thinks litfor} cancellation or changing^{any certificate of registration issued} under the 2001^{Act on the ground of contraventionof the} 200i Act or failure^{to obsele the conditions of registration.} Such a power can^{be exercised by the Registrarsuo-motoas} we11.

¶86

An order or^{decision of the Authorityor Registrar} relating to registration^{is appealable to the High Courtunder} Section 56 of 20O1^{Act, which forms part of ChapterVIII'}

¶87

Chapter-X deals^{with infringement,offences, penalties} andprocedure.UnderSection64arightestablishedunder the 2OO1 Act is infringed^{by a person who is not a breeder of} a variety registered^{under the 200 1 Act, sells, exports'} imports or produces^{such variety without the permission of} its breeder or^{within the scope of a registered licence or} registered agency without^{permission of the registered} licensee or registered^{agent as the case may be; and who} uses, sells, exports,^{imports or produces any other variety}

¶88

¶89

¶90

giving such variety the denomination identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of a variety registered under the 2001 Act; thereby causing confusion in the minds of the genera.l public in identifying such variety so re gistered.

¶91

¶92

In case of infringement, Section 65 comes into play. Sub-Section (1) says that no suit for the infringement of a variety regist.ered under the 2001 Act or relating to any right in a variety registered under the 2001 Act shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction. What relief can be granted in such a suit is provided for in Section 66 of the 2001 Act. The relief which may be granted includes injunction and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or a share of the profits. The Court is also empowered to grant ex parte injunction or pass any interlocutory order regarding the matter mentioned therein. In the course of the suit if the Court has to form an opinion upon any question of fact or a scientific issue, under Section 67 it may appoint an independent scientific advisor to suggest or to enquire into and to report upon the m atter so as to enable the District Court to form the desired opinion.

¶93

¶94

Section^{89says that no civil Court shail have} jurisdiction in respect^{of any matter which the Authorityor} the Registrar 1S empowered^{by or under the 200 1 Act to} determine.

¶95

Having^{surveyed the relevant legal provisions of the} 2OO1 Act, the^{plaint or the relevant portionsthereof may be} adverted to because^{to deciderejection of plaint under Order} VII Rule 11^{C.P'C, it is the avermentsmade in the plaint} alone which^{would have to be taken note of'In paragraph} No.l 1 of the^{piaint, the plaintiff has stated that ithas} developedhybridMaizevarietiesaftersubstantialresearch and development^{in order to suit Indian conditions' One} such variety is^{under the denomination of 30807'Plaintiff} had carried out^{researchand developmentof the 30807} variety from the Year^1998.

¶96

In paragraph^{No.14 it is statedthat the said varietyhas} been commercially^{produced and marketedby the plaintiff} since 09.09^{.2OO4 achieving great commercialsuccess'It was} notified in the^{Gazetteof India on 06'02'2007under Section} 5 of the Seeds^{Act, 1966.}

;

Plaintifl' has stated in paragraph No. 16 that the said variety is characterised as "extant variety" as defined under Section 2 fi) of the 2001 Act, having been commercialised and soid in the market since the year 2OO4. In paragraph No. 17 it is stated that in order to protect its rights and interest as the breeder of the extant variety, plaintifi applied for registration under Section 14 of the 200 1 Act on 01.04.2008. \'as After following the laid down procedure the variety registered under the 2001 Act on O7.O3.'2O1 1 which was on published vide a pubiic notice through the Registrar Ol.O7.2Ol1. The 30807 variety of the plaintiff now holds registration No.11 of 2011.

¶101

Plaintiff has stated in paragraph No.20 that in the course of a random market survey it came across defendant's produce in September, 20l 1 and learnt that defendant had applied for registration for an extart variety of Maize bearing denomination KMH-25K55. lt is stated that on receipt of such information, plaintiff had conducted investigation. Its .... investigation revealed similarity of defendant's variety to that of the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been alleged that defendant's variety has infringed piaintiff's rights in respect

¶102

¶103

¶104

Defendant's^{act of} of the registered^{Maize variety 30807'} production,^{marketing, selling and advertising its variety of} Maize KMH-25K55^{amounts to infringement of plaintiff,s} rights under^{Section 64 of the 200i Act'}

¶105

Paragraph^{No.3O of the plaint deals with cause of action} and the same^{reads as under:-}

¶106

"The^{cause of action} first^{arose on September 201-1uhen} the Ptaintiff^{disiouered" that Defendanthad appliedfor} 'r.gi"iiii"i of the impugned-uarietg KMH'25K55 before the iigii;t;", ,f itant^{vaieties' subsequentlg' the cause of action,} also arose when^{the Plaintiffpurchased the impugned product} of tn" Defendant^{on Februiry 27, 2012'The cause of action} ;"se in^{July, 2U2: tahen the PtaintiJf conduc.ted.a} hii, "jr.sh inuettigation in the next crop season to ascertain^the "alleged infingement. As such ihe cause of actio-n is^a ,oniinuoui oi^{and continues to subsistuntil the Defendants} are restrained^{by the orders of the Hon'bleCourt from} inVinging^{the regiitereclptant uariitg 3OBO7 of the Plaintiff"}

¶107

1. It is on that^{basis that plaintiffhas sought for the} relief of^{permanent injunction against thedefendant'} destruction^{of infringingproducts and damages'}

¶108

Learned^{courtbelowframed the point which arose for} consideration,^{as to whetherthe suit was liable for rejection} under Order^{VII Rule 11 C'P'C as claimed by the petitioner'} After referring^{to various decisions and provisions of the}

¶109

¶110

;

¶111

200 1 Act, learned court below came to foilowing conclusions

¶112

which are extracted as under:

¶113

" 14. The sum and substance of aboue dlscusslon, shoru that the present suit is filed under Section 64 to 66 of PPV and FR Act on the ground of infingement of registered uaietg of the plainttff. WTtereas on the other hand, admittedlg the defendant is also holder of the registered uaietg.

¶114

As can be seen from the plaint auerments, the plaintiff uaiety tuas registered on 07.03.2071, whereas as per the admission made in the written statement the uariety of the defendant was registered on 16.08.2012 i.e., 9 dags after filing^{of the sulf. So by the date of} ftling^{the suit, the defendant} haue no registration certificate utith respect to its uariety. Tlte present suit is filed basing on the cause of action arose in Julg, 2012. When the plainttff came to know about infringement of its uanetg by the drtndant by that time the defendants haue no registered uarietg and so by the date of Jiling tL'Le suit Section 6a of the PPV and FR act applies. At this stage it cannot be decided uLhether subsequent giuing of certiJicate to the defendant giues the immunity to the defendant from the earlier cause of action. Euen though the court is concurring with the defendant that it is also holder of the reqistered uarietg just like plaintiff bg the clate of filing this petition, as the defendant has no certificate for registered uariety by tLte date of ftling the suit, the suit haue to be decided basing on the cause of action arose in Julg, 2012 as mentioned in the suit. In those ciranrnstances, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for the suit. Hence the uery ground pleaded by the defendant that the sui/ is not maintainable due to lack of cause of action is not accepted and accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs.

¶115

¶116

In the result, the petition ls dismissed without cosfs. "

¶117

From the above, it is seen that according to the learned court below, at the time of institution of the suit the plant

¶118

¶119

va,riety of the^{defendant was not registered' It was registered} subseqr.rently^{on 16.08.2012. As noticedaboveaccording to} the plaintiff the^{cause of action first arose in September'} 2011 when the^{plaintiff had discoveredthat defendanthad} appiied for registration.^{The cause of action furtherarose in} July, 2Ol2^{when accordingto the piaintiff its investigation} revealed the aileged^{infringement' On that basis' learned} courtbelowhastakentheviewthatattheStageof considering rejection^{of plaint under OrderVII Rule 11 C'P'C} no conclusion^{can be reachedthat there was no cause of} action for institution^{of the suit or that the suit is barredby} any 1aw.

¶120

34.LearnedCourtbelowhascarefullyconsidered provisions of Sections²¹ ,24^{arLd 28 of the 200 1 Act' It is not} discernible therefrom^{that once an application filed by an} applicant is^{not opposed or if opposed such objection has} been rejected^{then there wouldbe deemed registration before} issuance of^{registrationcertificate' Prima facie' Coart could} not trace out^{any such provision' On the contrary'under} sub-section^{(4) of Section21 if the applicant fails to respond} to the objection^{filed within the prescribed period' it is he}

¶121

)

¶122

¶123

who would be deemed to have abandoned his application. That apart, in the case of infringement of a right established under the 2001 Act, a suit is maintainable under Section 65 of the 2OO1 r\ct which has to be instituted in a Court not inferior to a District Court.

¶124

Cancellation of registration or revocation of registration is one aspect but, infringement ola right under the 2001 Act is another aspect. This is illustrated by Section 89 of the 2001 Act u,hich clarifies that in respect ol an_v matter u'hich the Authority or the Registrar is competent to determine under the 2001 Act, jurisdiction of the civil Court u,ould be barred. The Registrar may cancel or revoke a certificate of registration under Sections 34 and 36 of the 200 1 Act on the grounds mentioned therein, such as, certificate of or registration being obtained on incorrect information, granted to a person not eligible etc. The issue as to whether a right under the 200 1 Act has been infringed or not is a different aspect covered by Section 64 of the 2001 Act, the remedy for which is a suit under Section 65.

¶125

The law relating to re.jection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C has by now been we ll settled by the Supreme

¶126

¶127

Court and requires no restatement.^{Nonethelessto put the} matter in perspective we may^{quote from the relevant portion} of the decision of Supreme Court in^{PV GURU RAJ REDDY} Vs. P. NEERADHA REDDYT, which^{dealt with the provision} of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C, observing^{that rejection of plant} under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C^{is a drastic power conferred} on the Court to terminate^{a civil actionat the threshold. It} was stressed upon that the conditions^{precedent to the} exercise of power under^{Order VII Rule 11 C'P.C a-re} stringent. Only the averments^{in the plant have to be read as} a whole to find out whether it^{discloses a cause of action or} whether the suit is barred under^{any 1aw. At the stage of} exercise of power under Order^{VII Rule 11 C.P'C standof the} defendants in the written^{statement or in the application for} rejection of plant is wholly immaterial.^{It is only ifthe} averments in the piant ex facie^{do not disclosea cause of} action or of a reading thereof^{the suit appears to be barred} under any law, the^{plaint can be rejected. In all other} circumstances the claims will have^{to be adjudicated in the} course of the trial.

¶128

¶129

'^{(20 rs) 8 scc tiI}

$l:l rlI If

;

J/. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Court below has not committed any error or infirmity in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶136

However, all contentions raised are kept open to be decided in the course of the tria1.

¶137

In view of the above, this civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶138

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶139

¶140

One fair copy to THE HON,BLE SRt JUSTTCE UJJAL BHUYAN (For His Lordship's Kind perusal)

¶141

o.,s,3+1il+Rtbf$'llfl //TRUE COPY// G} SECTION OFFICER

¶142

To,

¶143

1 The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶144

22 One One CC CC to to SRl. SRl. V DT.VENKAT M tV CHARY, REDDy Advocate. tOpUClDONTHT REDDy, Advocate. IOpUCI 4 Two CD Copies One Spare Copy o 11 L.R.COPIES

¶145

7 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶146

B The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Assocjation Library, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

t'/

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810412022