- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner under Sections 134 & 135 of Trade Mark Act and under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the suit by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for raising certain objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. The respondent did not file reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, vide order dated 26.10.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the application without going into the objections raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Anuroop Singhi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had raised three contentions before the learned Judge, namely that although the suit was filed on behalf of M/s A-One Products through its proprietor Shri Ramesh Chand Vijayvergia, however, there was no document to prove the fact that Mr. Vijayvergia was, indeed, the proprietor of the firm. Secondly, the cause of action did not arise in Jaipur as the petitioner-Company is functioning in Telegupalayam, Tamil Nadu and does not sell any of its products in Jaipur. Therefore, the court in Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Thirdly, although the plaintiff claims that the petitioner company has caused the plaintiff a loss of Rs. 20 lacs, yet the valuation of the suit has not been done properly. Therefore, the proper court fees has not been paid. According to the learned Counsel, despite the fact that these three contentions were raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not discussed any of the contentions and has passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.;