Orissa High Court

M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited vs M/S. Tega Industries Limited on 3 April, 2025

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                     C.R.P. No.16 of 2023

     An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
                      Procedure, 1908.



                              ***

M/s. Swagath Urethane Private Limited.

                                ...                  Petitioner.

                               -VERSUS-

  M/s. Tega Industries Limited.
                                    ...         Opposite Party.



Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner        : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
                              Dr. A. Ghosh, Adv.
                              Mr. S. Parida, Advocate.
                              Mrs. S. Pati, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party    :   Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate.
                              Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mallick, Adv.


P R E S E N T:

                     HONOURABLE
         MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 03.04.2025

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been

filed by the petitioner (defendant-company in the suit vide C.S.

No.01 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned District Judge

Khurda at Bhubaneswar) against the Opp. Party(plaintiff-

Company in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019) praying for setting

aside an Order of rejection of its petition under Order 7, Rule 11

of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated 29.10.2022 by the learned

District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

2. The Opposite Party and the petitioner of this revision being

two companies are the plaintiff and defendant respectively in the

suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 pending in the court of learned

District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

The suit of the plaintiff-company vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 is

a suit for damages and permanent injunction against the

defendant-company alleging that, the defendant-company is

manufacturing and selling their products violating the patent IN

231453 of the plaintiff-company.

In that suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019, the defendant-company

filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 praying

for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff-company on the ground

that, as per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff-

company, the defendant-company and the plaintiff-company both

are the suppliers of M/s. Jindal Steel Works Limited at Bellari

Karnataka. The offices of the defendant-company are situated

only at IDA, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad 520062, Telengana, for

which, the suit of the plaintiff-company could have been filed in

the Court of learned District Judge, at Hyderabad or in the Court

of learned District Judge, at Bellari, District-Bellari, Karnataka.

Because, only the aforesaid two Courts have the territorial

jurisdiction for entertaining the suit in respect of the alleged

violation of Patent Rights of the plaintiff-company as per Sections

104,105 & 106 of the Patents Act, 1970.

When, instead of filing the suit in any one of the aforesaid

two jurisdictional Courts, the plaintiff-company filed the suit in

the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas,

Alipore, (W.B) vide T.S. No.93 of 2016 for which, as per Order

dated 12.02.2019 passed in that suit vide T.S. No.93 of 2016

under Order 7, Rule 10A of the CPC, 1908, the learned District

Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) returned that plaint

vide T.S. No.93 of 2016 to the plaintiff-company along with its

Vakalatnama handing over the same to the plaintiff-company to

file the same before the proper jurisdictional Court. For which,

the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 in the Court of

learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is not

maintainable under law, as the learned District Judge, Khurda at

Bhubaneswar has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the

plaintiff-company would have filed the suit either in the Court of

learned District Judge, at Hyderabad or in the Court of learned

District Judge, at Bellari, District-Bellari, Karnataka, then, the

suit of the plaintiff-company could have been maintainable under

law. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on

the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. The plaintiff-company objected to the said petition under

Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant stating that,

the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 has been filed properly in the

Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on the

basis of an Order dated 12.02.2019 passed in T.S. No.93 of 2016

under Order 7, Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 by the learned District Judge, South 24

Parganas, Alipore, (W.B). Because, as per Order dated

12.02.2019 under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the

CPC, 1908, the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas,

Alipore, (W.B) had specifically directed to the plaintiff-Company to

file the suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar

at Khurda on dated 15.03.2019.

On the basis of the said order dated 12.02.2019 passed by

the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, (W.B)

under Order 7, Rule 10A r/w section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff

filed the suit on dated 15.03.2019 before the learned District

Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar against the defendant-company

praying for the reliefs i.e. damages and injunction against the

defendant-company, as the registered office of the defendant is

under the jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Khurdha at

Bhubaneswar i.e. at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia,

Bhubaneswar, wherein the defendant-company is carrying on its

business.

The said suit of the plaintiff was numbered as C.S. No.1 of

2019 in the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda at

Bhubaneswar. For which, the plaint of the plaintiff-company in

the Court of learned District Judge, Khurdha can never be

rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as, the

registered office of the defendant is situated at Chandaka

Industrial Complex, Patia, Bhubaneswar, which is within the

territorial jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Khurda at

Bhubaneswar, wherein, the defendant-company is carrying on its

business. As such, when the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 has

been filed in obedience to the Judicial Order passed on dated

12.02.2019 by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas,

Alipore, (W.B) under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section 151 of

the CPC, 1908, then, at this juncture, the petition under Order 7,

Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the defendant is not entertainable

under law. The same is liable to be rejected.

4. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides

and taking into account the cause title and the averments

made in the plaint of the plaintiff as well as the Order dated

12.02.2019 passed under Order 7, Rule 10A read with Section

151 of the CPC, 1908 by the learned District Judge, South 24

Parganas, Alipore, (W.B), the learned District Judge, Khurda

at Bhubaneswar rejected to the petition under Order 7, Rule

11 CPC, 1908 of the defendant-company as per order dated

29.10.2022 assigning the reasons that, the suit of the plaintiff

vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 is not bad on the ground of territorial

jurisdiction, as the registered office of the defendant-company

is situated at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia,

Bhubaneswar which is under its jurisdiction, in which, the

defendant-company is carrying on its business .

5. On being dissatisfied with the said order of rejection to the

petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 of the

defendant passed on dated 29.10.2022 by the learned District

Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1 of 2019, the

defendant-company challenged the same by filing this revision

being the petitioner against the plaintiff-company arraying it as

Opp. Party.

6. I have already heard from the learned Sr. counsel for the

petitioner (defendant-company) and the learned counsel for the

Opp. Party (plaintiff-company).

7. During the course of hearing of this revision, the learned Sr.

Counsel for the petitioner (defendant-company) relied upon the

following decisions to assail the impugned order dated

29.10.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at

Bhubaneswar.

I. Ramisetty Venkatanna & Another Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheeb & Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521.

II. Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601.

III. T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467.

8. On the contrary, in support of the impugned order dated

29.10.2022, the learned counsel for the Opp. Party (plaintiff-

company) relied upon the following decisions:

I. Ramesh B. Desai & Others vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Others reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638.

II. Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510.

            III.     Hanamanthappa           &     Another      Vs.
                     Chandrashekharappa & Others reported in
                     (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 688.





          IV.    John Richard Brady & Others Vs. Chemical
                Process   Equipments    Private     Limited   &
                Another reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 372.
          V.    Radhakrishna Reddy (died) & Others Vs. G.

Ayyavoo & Others reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 2068.

9. Upon hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides,

the crux of this revision is that,

Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed

in C.S. No.1 of 2019 by the learned District Judge, Khurda

at Bhubaneswar rejecting the petition under Order 7, Rule

11 CPC of the defendant-company for rejection of the plaint

of the plaintiff-company is sustainable under law?

10. It is well evident from the cause title of the plaint of the

plaintiff-company that, the registered office of the defendant

company is at Chandaka Industrial Complex, Patia,

Bhubaneswar, which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of

the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

As per Section 20 of the CPC, 1908, the suit of the plaintiff

is entertainable in a Court, within whose local limits of whose

jurisdiction, the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or

carries on business or personally works for gain or where the

cause of action wholly or in part arises.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already

been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following

decision:

I. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2014 (II) OLR (SC) 587 that, a suit must be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

11. The plaintiff-company has instituted the suit vide O.S.

No.01 of 2019 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Khurda

at Bhubaneswar on the basis of the specific direction through a

judicial order passed by the learned District Judge, South 24

Parganas, Alipore, (W.B) in T.S. No.93 of 2016 as per Order 7,

Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908.

For which, it cannot be held that, the learned District

Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has no territorial jurisdiction to

admit the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019 for its adjudication.

That apart, it is also forthcoming from the cause title of the

plaint of the plaintiff-company in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2019

that, the defendant company is carrying on its business through