-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2009 Star India Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with registered office at Star House, off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011(India). (Registered address) …... Petitioner V e r s u s Richard Cable Network, Sole Proprietary Firm of Mr. Richard D' Costa, businessman, aged 37 years married, son of Thomas Acquino D' Costa, with Office/Shop at IInd Floor, Florida II, Abade de Faria Road, Margao, Salcete, Goa. (Registered address) …... Respondent Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 9 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard finally forthwith by consent of both the Counsel. -2- 3. A short point comes for consideration as to whether the impugned Order cannot be sustained on the ground that the learned Trial Judge while disposing of the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has dismissed the said application on the assumption that the application is to be considered under the provisions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Notification dated 10.12.2004, are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the above case as, according to him, the bar of jurisdiction is also applicable to the Respondent herein. 5. On perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the learned Judge has failed to consider the application within the provisions of the Notification dated 09.01.2004 and 10.12.2004 whereby the provisions of the Telecom Act have been amended. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that the said Notification in any event are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Be that as it may, on perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the learned Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by disposing of the said application without considering the provisions of the Notification of 2004 as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. As such, the impugned Order cannot be sustained and the learned Trial Judge shall have to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 afresh -3- after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. 6. The impugned Order dated 18.08.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit no. 10/2009/I is quashed and set aside. The learned Judge is directed to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the Petitioner afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by the parties are left open. Rule in the above terms. 7. Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*