SBCMA No.1386/2008 Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.1386/2008 Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 24.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge the order of the court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur passed in Civil Original Suit No.121/2008. By this order dated 19th Sept., 2008 instead of rejecting the plaintiff's- appellant's plaint,the trial court returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit impleading five defendants. Defendant no.5 alone is having its place/residence/business within the territorial jurisdiction of the court below at Jodhpur. Against this defendant no.5, no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in SBCMA No.1386/2008 Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors. 2 the suit. As per the plaint averments also there appears that there is no grievance of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant no.5. The plaintiff received one notice from the defendant no.1 through his counsel dated 27.8.2008 asking plaintiff not to sell the goods purchased from defendant no.5 in Raniwada, Bheenmal and Sanchore, which are in the District of Jalore and not in the District of Jodhpur. There are reference of litigation between the parties with respect to the commodity in question – Langar Bidi' and orders passed by the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. Be it as it may be, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation in proper court on the ground that neither the parties are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, Jodhpur nor the cause of action accrued in the territory of Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant purchased the goods from the dealer of Langar Bidi in the Jodhpur and, therefore, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur over which the court below has SBCMA No.1386/2008 Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors. 3 jurisdiction. It is also submitted that even if there is a joint owner of any trade mark then the joint owner of the trade mark can do the business and other party can purchase the goods from the said party and after purchasing the goods from the dealer,he can sale the goods to anybody in the course of trade. It is submitted that the total cause of action accrued within the territory of District Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions of Section 24,30 and 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in support of his contention. It appears and rightly appeared from the reasons given in the impugned order of the trial court dated 19th Sept., 2008 that the trial court has very specifically considered all the aspects of the matter and particularly, the fact that against defendant no.5, there is no relief claimed and if his presence is ignored then all the defendants i.e., defendants nos. 1 to 4 are not residing or carrying on business within the territory of Jodhpur as per the pliant allegations. The plaintiff was asked to not to do business within certain areas of District Jalore. Therefore, the plaintiff was asked not to do business in the Jalore, SBCMA No.1386/2008 Bajrang Lal Agarwal Vs. M/s. Langar Bidi Co., Pune & Ors. 4 which is the area outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. Therefore, none of the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff-appellant within the territory of the Jodhpur. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-