IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.471 of 2007 ----- Jugal Kishore Drolia, son of Late Kashinath Drolia of M/s Drolia Rang and Sindur Factory, Residing at Chitranjan Road, Opposite Rani Sati Mandi Lakhi Sarai, Bihar. -- Defendant No.1- Petitioner. Versus M/S Drolia Sindur Products (A Partnership firm) through its authorised partner Shri Om Prakash Drolia at & P.O. Lakhi Sarai, District Lakhisarai. Bihar. --Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the opposite party : None. ---- 03. 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 04.12.2006 by which his application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of brevity) was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Patna in Title Suit No.23 of 2005. 3. The said suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants themselves as also through their individual partners, proprietors, agents, servants, dealers, assignees, representatives successors, distributors and all other acting for and on their behalf from using, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode under the impugned trade mark/ labels. AnnexureD-1 including its constituent and artistic feature or any other trade mark/ labels - 2 - identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s Trade mark/ labels (Annexure-A) in relation to the goods namely Sindur and business of perfumery and related goods or from doing any other acts or deeds or amounting or resulting in passing off their goods and business as that of the plaintiffs and/ or infringing the plaintiff’s copy rights and plaintiff’s common law in the plaintiff’s trade mark/label and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. In the said suit the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested and on 25.11.2005 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code on the ground that no cause of action had been shown in the plaint and the suit was barred by the Copy Right Act and the Trade Marks Act. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 04.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff had specifically mentioned the cause of action for filing the suit and it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. However, the validity/legality of the said cause of action and its denial by the defendants have to be considered at the time of hearing of the suit after considering the respective pleadings and evidence of the parties. 6. So far the question of the suit being barred by any law is concerned, from the statement in the plaint there does not appear to be any bar, nor is any such bar provided under the provisions of the - 3 - concerned statute, namely Copy Right Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage under the said provisions of sub-rule (a) and (d) of rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the defendant vide its impugned order dated 04.12.2006. 7. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)