The Western India Match Co. Ltd., Madras vs Haji Abbas Hussain Mullah Ehsan Ali and Others

Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.—The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whose Presiding Officer is the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, has jurisdiction to try a suit instituted under the Trade Marks Act (V of 1940).

The suit was instituted on 9-8-1954 under the Trade Marks Act in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which had jurisdiction then over the Hyderabad City only. It is common ground that the suit was properly instituted in that Court and that it was the only Court in which it could have been instituted. But under scheme of re-organisation of the Courts, the Government issued a notification combining the two cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad into a single unit under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also prescribed the strength of its officers. The relevant part of the G. O. is as follows:

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Abstract

Courts - Civil and Criminal - Judicial set up in Andhra Pradesh - Revision and Reoganisation - Orders - Issued.

HOME (COURTS B) DEPARTMENT.

G. O. Ms. No. 444 Dated 14th March 1958

Read the following :

G. O. Ms. No. 2100 Home dated 18-12-1957.

Read also :

From the Registrar, High Court, Roc., No. 3302/56-B special, dated 17-7-1957.

From the Inspector General of Police Foc. No. 1695/57 dated 20-12-1957.

From the Deputy Registrar, High Court D. O. No. 3305/56-B1 dated 22-2-1958.

ORDER: The "Government have had under consideration for some time past, the question of introducing a uniform Judicial set-up in the Telangana and the Andhra area of the State and reorganising the Judiciary in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The proposals sent up by the High Court have been examined in detail in consultation with the Inspector General of Police and the following Orders are issued :

The proposal of the High Court that there should be common courts for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad is approved. The new set up for the administration of Civil and Criminal Justice in the two cities in future will be as follows :

CIVIL COURTS;

i)(a) City Civil Court

The two cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad should be combined into a single unit under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This court should have a strength of the following officers to start with :

One Chief Judge of the grade of District Judge;

One Additional Judge of the grade of the District Judge;

Four Additional Judges of the grade of Sub-Judges;

Three Additional Judges of the grade of Munssif-Magistrates.

The jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Judges in the grade of Sub-Judges who will be having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction is extended over the area now comprised, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Hyderabad District. The six Munsiffs in the said area will be under the appellate jurisdiction and control of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court and will dispose of cases triable by Munsiffs.

The Officers of the grade of the Sub-Judges should be invested with unlimited ordinary original Civil jurisdiction as in Andhra and Officers of the grade of Munsiffs should be invested with pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs. 5,000/-.

On 28-3-1958, another G. O. Ms. No. 555 was passed in partial modification of the G. O. Ms. 444. The material part of it is as follows :

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Hyderabad Civil Courts Act, 1954 (Hyderabad Act XXXVI of 1954), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that with effect on and from the 1st April, 1958, the areas specified in the schedule to this Notification shall be deemed to be a district within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

SCHEDULE.

Hyderabad City

Secunderabad City and Taluk.

Hyderabad East and Medical Taluks.

Hyderabad West and Shahabad Taluks

Ibrahimpatnam Taluk.

Tandur Taluk.

Pargi Taluk.

Vikarabad Taluk.

As a result, the court of the District Judge of Hyderabad and the District Judge of Secunderabad were abolished and a district within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was formed with effect from 1-4-1958 comprising twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and six taluks of Hyderabad District. There are two presiding Officers of the City Civil Court. Hyderabad in the grade of District Judge. Under G. O. Ms. No. 555, the Principal Presiding Officer of the City Civil Court is designate as the Chief Judge of the City Civil Court and the other officer who is presiding over the lower court is designated as the Additional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court The Chief Judge is presiding over the Court situate in Secunderabad. This suit which was rightly instituted in the Court of the 1st Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad continued in the same court in Hyderabad now presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, after the reorganisation and who passed the order now sought to be revised

It appears that several witnesses were examined before the lower court and at that stage. The plaintiff expressed a doubt whether the lower court, presided Over by the Additional Chief Judge has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of sec. 73 of the Trade Marks Act. Arguments were heard on this question. The lower court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that only the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, has jurisdiction to try it. It therefore ordered that the case be submitted before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad at Secunderabad. It is this order that the plaintiff now seeks to revise, though it was his counsel that posed this question in the lower court.

Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act is as follows :

No suit for the infringement of a trade mark or otherwise relating to any right in a trade mark shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

Under this section, no suit shall be instituted in any Court which is inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. In this Act, "District Court" has the meaning assigned to it in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 2 Cl. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, defines "District Court" as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction exercising jurisdiction over the entire "District".

The lower court took the view that the Principal Civil Court is only the court presided over by the Chief Judge and that the other court presided over by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try the suit. In my view, the lower court is wrong in holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act bars only the institution of a suit in any Court inferior to a District Court. As already stated, this suit was instituted in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 9th August, 1954, which admittedly was then a District Court within the meaning of Sec. 73 of the Trade Marks Act and Sec. 2 (4) of the CPC Code, 1908.

But it is now contended before me by the learned counsel for the defendants that the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge is not the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the "District" and is not a District Court within the meaning of Sec. 73 of the Trade Marks Act and is not therefore competent to try the suit. It is not necessary for me to decide whether the lower court, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge is the Principal Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Under Sec. 73 of the Trade Marks Act, the only question that arises is whether the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge is a Court inferior to the Court presided over by the Chief Judge. G. O. Ms. No. 444 makes it clear that the City Civil Court is only one Court and that court has the strength of the Officers mentioned therein. It is also clear that the Courts presided over by the Chief Judge and Additional Chief Judge respectively are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction both pecuniary and territorial. There is nothing in G. O. Ms. No. 444 or in G. O. Ms. No. 555 to Indicate that the City Civil Court, whose Presiding Officer is the Additional Chief Judge is a Court inferior to the City Civil Court whose Presiding Officer is the Chief Judge.

For these reasons I am of the view that the City Civil Court, whose Presiding Officer is the Addl. Chief Judge is not a court inferior to the City Civil Court whose Presiding Officer is the Chief Judge. It follows that Sec. 73 of the Trade Marks Act does not bar the trial of the suit by the lower court and that the lower court has jurisdiction to try it.

The order of the lower court is set aside and the C. R. P. is allowed, but without costs. The lower court will proceed expeditiously with the trial of the suit which was filed on 9-8-1954 and which is pending for 61/2 years.