The 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 7401 of 2004 in the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2), and the petitioner herein (defendant No.3), for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the 2nd respondent from manufacturing and marketing "Triaminic" brand products, enumerated in the schedule; through the 3rd respondent and the petitioner or their agents; for perpetual injunction, to restrain the said parties from distributing that produce, and for mandatory injunction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 herein to continue the supply of that product.

2. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 153 of 2005 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action for the 1st respondent to file the suit against the petitioner, and that there did not exist any privity of contract between them. A further plea was taken to the effect that the 1st respondent is neither a registered proprietor, nor a licenced user of the trade mark "Triamanic", or Triomanic" under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short `the Act') and that the jurisdiction of the trial Court is barred, under Section 154 of the Act. The 1st respondent opposed the application, stating that though there was no privity of contract between itself and the petitioner, the arrangement between the 3'd respondent, on the one hand, and the petitioner, on the other hand, has necessitated the filing of the suit against the petitioner also. Through its order dated 15-04-2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence this C.R.P.

3. Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the suit, in so far as it was filed against the petitioner is totally without any basis and there is absolutely no cause of action for it. He contends that in clear and specific terms, the 1st respondent intended to enforce his rights under the Distributor on Consignment Basis (DCB), and once it is not denied, that the petitioner is not a party to the DCB, there is no way, that the petitioner could have been included in the array of the parties, much less any relief could have been claimed.

4. Sri M.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the necessity for the 1st respondent to implead the petitioner herein, as defendant No.3 in the suit, has arisen, on account of an arrangement between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, which is very much a party to the DCB.

5. The basis for the suit filed by the 1st respondent is a DCB agreement, between itself and the 3rd respondent. The first paragraph of the plaint reads as under:

"The plaintiff respectfully submits that the defendant No.1 has been manufacturing various pharmaceutical preparations, drops, syrups, including Triaminic – c.s. cough, syrup, Triaminic drops, Triaminic – e, Expectorant and other related preparations for the last twenty years. The plaintiff has been the Distributor on Consignment Basis (DCB) for the defendant No.2 for the entire state of Andhra Pradesh since a long time and the agreement is valid up to 31-03-2006. The plaintiff respectfully submits that he has spent considerable time, energy and money to develop the brand and also increase the sales of the Triaminic syrup, drops and tablets as a brand through out the State of Andhra Pradesh as the DCB of the defendant No.2. As submitted earlier the defendant No.1 exclusively manufactures the therapeutic preparations under the brand name `Triaminic' for the defendant No.2'.

6. The only basis pleaded by the 1st respondent to implead the petitioner herein is mentioned in paragraph 4, as under:

"The plaintiff respectfully submits that the erstwhile Wander Pvt. Limited gave out an assurance to the plaintiff that in terms of its agreement with the defendant No.3, it would be the exclusive distributor for a period of eight years for the product above mentioned".

7. In p