- (1.) The impugned order has been passed by the learned Judge in the trial Court in a slipshod manner without adverting to the issues germane and the importance is given to extraneous factors. While dealing with an application for temporary injunction, the learned Judge in the trial Court proceeded to hold that the suit is not maintainable which really forecloses further avenues to the plaintiff.
(2.) The impugned order may be segregated in three parts. Firstly, the Court found that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Secondly, the learned Judge hold that the suit is not competent having filed without taking leave under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thirdly, the manner in which the order dated December 21, 2018 was passed by the predecessor, is not proper and in conformity with the legal provision.
(3.) Before embarking the journey on the legality and infirmity of the impugned judgment, it would be appropriate to deal with the nature of the claim made in the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the trial Court. The Title Suit no. 27 of 2018 is filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the Court of learned District Judge at Alipore for an accounts from the defendant and the delivery of the products registered by them and permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from continuing and repeating any infringement of any patent of the plaintiff/appellant or from doing any act to injure such intellectual property and also to stop the registration of battery operated eco-friendly e-rikshaws. Several proceedings were initiated in relation thereto before different Courts and the same has been adumbrated in several paragraphs of the plaint and ultimately in the cause of action paragraph it is stated that the same arose on February 24, 2002 within the jurisdiction of the Court against the defendants or the Government and its instrumentality.;