- (1.) This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.4. 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge ( SC/ST Act), Court no. 2, Gautam Buddha Nagar whereby the application ( Paper No. 269 Ga ) filed by the defendant revisionists under section 151 C.P.C. in original Suit No. 254 of 2008 for returning the plaint to the competent court has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to this revision are as follows:
(3.) A suit, being Suit No. 254 of 2008, was instituted by the plaintiff respondent on 27.3.2008 in the court of Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.), Gautam Buddha Nagar, interalia, for a declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant revisionists filed an application on 26.8.2009 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. stating therein that the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed under Trade Marks Act 1999 (in short "Act"). During the pendency of the aforesaid application under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the plaintiff respondent moved a transfer application ( N0. 64/2010) under section 24(5) C.P.C. before the District Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar seeking transfer of the suit from the court of Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.) to the competent court having jurisdiction. The District Judge, after considering the matter allowed the said transfer application filed under section 25(4) C.P.C. on 7.9. 2010 and withdrew the suit from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to his own court and thereafter entrusted the matter to the Addl. District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar for trial of the suit . After the transfer of the aforesaid suit to the Court of the District Judge, the defendant revisionists appeared before the trial court i.e. Addl. District Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar and filed its written statement as well as reply to the interim injunction application on 28.1.2011. The defendant revisionist neither objected to the transfer of the suit under Section 24 (5) CPC nor challenged the order dated 7.9.2010 whereby the suit was transferred by the District Judge. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the trial court framed issues vide orders dated 24.4.13 and 1.10.13. The defendant revisionist did not press for the framing of issue in regard to the jurisdiction or maintainability of suit before the trial court. After framing of the issues, the parties led their respective evidences in the matter, and witnesses were examined and cross-examined and arguments thereafter were heard by the court below, and the suit reached the final stage for final disposal. It is also noteworthy that the application for interim injunction filed earlier by the plaintiff respondents in the above suit was dismissed by the trial court on 15.2.2013 and interim interim injunction was vacated.;