Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F vs M/S Udhog Mandir on 6 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:43554]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3813/2021
Dilesh Raj Borana F.u.f., Aged About 31 Years, Proprietor - K.
Chaturbhuj Oil Shop No. 9, Shri Ram Market Block, Main Mandor
Krishi Mandi, Jodhpur (Rajasthan Also At - Chaturbhuj Oil,
Khasra No. 161, Plot No. 6-A, Opposite Ram Nagar, Sangaria,
Jodhpur - 342001 (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Udhog Mandir, F-148-149, Bichwal Udhyogic Area, Bikaner
Through Partner - Vijay Kumar Naulakha S/o Sh. Sohanlal B/c
Naulakha, Address - F-148-149, Bichwal Industrial Area, Bikaner
- 334006 (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Ashok Soni, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Yash Dadish
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.D. Bansal
Mr. Prateek Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 11/09/2025
Pronounced on:- 06/10/2025
Uploaded on:- 06/10/2025
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated
23.07.2021 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bikaner
in Civil Original Suit No.16/2021, whereby the application for
return/rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule X, Order VII
Rule XI read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'CPC') filed by the present petitioner -
defendant/counter claimant has been rejected in respect of
trademark 'NATURAL GOLD'.
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (2 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant submitted
that the respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction
along with an application for temporary injunction alleging
infringement of trademark and copyright in respect of edible oil
registered in the name of 'NATURAL' under the Trademarks Act,
1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
plaint filed by the respondent - plaintiff it was averred that the
petitioner - firm's trademark 'NATURAL' has been registered under
the Trademarks Act, 1999 and therefore, the petitioner firm has
complete authority to use the aforesaid name. The petitioner firm,
on 30.07.2020 from its distributors and few consumers came to
know that edible oil in the name of 'NATURAL GOLD' is also
available in the market. The tins (container) of the edible oil bears
the name and address of the petitioner-defendant. The respondent
- plaintiff thus by way of filing a suit before the learned District
Court prayed that the petitioner - defendant may be prevented
from using and selling its product under the name of 'NATURAL
GOLD' as the same is infringing the plaintiff's rights to use its
registered trademark 'NATURAL'.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner -
defendant filed an application dated 18.02.2021 before the
learned District Court under Order VII Rule X, Order VII Rule XI
read with Section 151 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Court
to entertain the suit preferred by the respondent - plaintiff
regarding infringement of trademark. In the application filed by
the petitioner - defendant, it was stated that the plaint filed by
the respondent - plaintiff does not disclose that a cause of action
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (3 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
has accrued in its favor within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court hearing the matter i.e the Court of learned District Judge,
Bikaner. It was further stated that neither the petitioner -
defendant resides nor carries on any business of selling oil with
trademark 'NATURAL' by himself or through any wholesaler,
retailer or on commercial basis within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Court of learned District Court, Bikaner. It was thus, prayed
that the plaint filed by the respondent - plaintiff may be returned
or in alternative the same may be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
5. The Court of learned District Court, Bikaner after hearing the
parties on the application under Order VII Rule X read with
Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner - defendant has rejected
the same on the ground that the respondent - plaintiff in the
plaint has disclosed its registered address to M/s Udyog Mandir F-
148-149 Bichwal Industrial Area, Bikaner through partner Shri
Vijay Kumar Nolakha which indicates that the petitioner firm and
its partners reside and carry on business within the jurisdiction of
the concerned Court of learned District Court, Bikaner.
6. Further, the plaint filed on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff
does not indicate that it is residing or conducting any business
activities through its branches, firm, or distributors in Jodhpur. The
plaint also does not disclose that the respondent - plaintiff came
to know about the infringement of its registered trademark at
Jodhpur, which is essential for returning the plaint under Order VII
Rule X of CPC on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to try
the suit.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that the respondent - plaintiff, in the plaint filed by it before the
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (4 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
Court of learned District Court, Bikaner specifically averred that it
is doing business at pan India level and the petitioner - defendant
resides in Jodhpur. The respondent - plaintiff also failed to disclose
the accrual of cause of action within territorial jurisdiction of the
Court at Bikaner. He contended that in the impugned order the
District Court, Bikaner has failed to take in to consideration that
Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of
the Copyright Act, 1957 only provide for forum convience and do
not dispense with the requirment of cause of action as mandated
under Section 20 of CPC. Thus, the suit filed on behalf of the
respondent - plaintiff ought not to have be entertained by the
District Judge, Bikaner.
8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner - defendant has placed reliance on following
Judgments:-
• Indian Performing Rights Society Vs. Sanjay Dalia, (2015)
10 SCC 161.
• Patel Roadways Ltd Vs. Prasad Trading Company, (1991) 4
SCC 270.
• Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational
Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust,
2012(8) SCC 706.
• Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41.
• A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC
163.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff
while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned
District Judge, Bikaner, submitted that the Court dealing with the
application under Order VII Rule X read with Section 151 CPC is
only required to undertake a simple exercise of seeing whether
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (5 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
the grounds/averments made in the plaint discloses a cause of
action or not so long the plaint discloses some cause of action and
not the complete cause of action, it cannot be dismissed or
returned on mere askance of the respondent - plaintiff. He further
submitted that in the present case, the Court of learned District
Court, Bikaner has passed a well reasoned order recording its
satisfaction with regard to cause of action available to the
respondent - plaintiff for filing suit seeking injunction for
infringement of trademark and copyright in respect of the edible
oil 'NATURAL' used by the petitioner - defendant. Lastly, it was
urged that the respondent - plaintiff's ordinary resides/principal
place of business of the plantiff is Bikaner and cause of action has
also arisen at Bikaner, therefore the respondent - plaintiff was
well within its rights to institute a suit at Court of learned District
Court, Bikaner. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
respondent - plaintiff implored the Court to dismiss the instant
writ petition.
10. Heard.
11. Section 20 of CPC is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or
cause of, action arises .-
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in
a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a)the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are
more than one, at the time of the commencement of the
suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business,
or personally works for gain; or
(b)any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at
the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of
the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or
carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid,
acquiesce in such institution; or
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (6 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
(c)the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
[* * * *]
[Explanation] [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 7, for " Explanation II"
(w.e.f. 1.2.1977).].-A corporation shall be deemed to carry
on business at its sole or principal office in [India]
[Substituted by Act 2 of 1951, Section 3, for " the States" .]
or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place
where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
12. Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is reproduced
below for ready reference:-
"134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before
District Court.--
(1)No suit--
(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or
(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or
(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any
trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's trade mark, whether registered or unregistered,shall
be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having
jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a
"District Court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a
District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the
time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the
person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are
more than one such persons any of them, actually and
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works
for gain.
Explanation.--
For the purposes of sub-section (2), "person" includes the
registered proprietor and the registered user."
13. In the present case, the respondent - plaintiff is having a
registered office at Bikaner through which it is conducting
business of edible oil. The plaint also discloses that it was only on
30.07.2020 when the respondent - plaintiff through its suppliers
and consumers came to know that edible oil is being produced and
sold by the petitioner - defendant in the name of 'NATURAL GOLD'
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (7 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
which is claimed to be identical or deceptively similar to the
respondent's trademark product which is also available in the
market.
14. True it is that as per Section 20 of CPC a suit for permanent
injunction can be filed where the defendant resides or cause of
action arises, however in exception to the aforesaid general rule,
Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides a special rule of
jurisdiction for instituting suits relating to trademark infringement.
In that view of the matter a perusal of Section 134(2) of the
Trademarks Act, 1999 leaves no room of doubt that a suit for
infringement of the trademark can be instituted in territorial
jurisdiction of a District Court where the plaintiff's principal place
of business is located, he resides or carries on business. In other
words, a registered proprietor or a registered user of the
trademark may institute an infringement suit where the plaintiff
resides or carries on business even if the cause of action does not
arise at that place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while
Interpreting Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in the case
of Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra), observed that
there is no doubt about it that the words used in Section 62 of the
Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trademarks Act
'notwithstanding anything contained in CPC or any other law for
the time being in force' emphasis is that the requirement of
Section 20 of CPC would not have to be complied with by the
plaintiff if he resides or carries on business in the local limits of
the Court where he has filed the suit.
15. In view of the admitted fact that the respondent - plaintiff is
residing and carrying business of edible oil by the name of
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43554] (8 of 8) [CW-3813/2021]
'NATURAL' in Bikaner so also keeping in mind the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the precedent law, this Court finds
no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated
23.02.2021 passed by the Court of learned District Court, Bikaner
in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule XI read with
Section 151 CPC and under Order VII Rule X CPC.
16. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.
17. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
71-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:44:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
