Kumar, J

This writ petition is filed by the second defendant in OS 27080/2007 challenging the order passed on an interlocutory application under Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2000 wherein the trial court has refused to transfer the suit to the High Court.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court.

3. The plaintiff M/s Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s Vijay steel Tubes and Fittings Private Limited, for a declaration that the defendants or their men are not entitled to manufacture, sale, use or offer for sale, the PVC Pipes and fittings produced with the list to the plaint, manufactured by the defendants, which infrings the rights, benefits and privileges grnted under the Design Registration No. 203491 and Design Registration No. 203492 by the Patent Office of the Government of India in favour o fth eplaintiff and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from applying, copying, dealing with or selling or from doing such other act, resulting into taking the features and element of the plaintiff’s design, a registered porduct which infringes the intellectural property rights of th plaintiff and for a direction to the defendant to render in detail accounts showing the entire quantum of infrigning products manufactured and sold by the defendant through out and for a direction to hand over the impugned product pipes and for consequential reliefs.

4. After service of summons, second defendant filed a detailed written statement travesing all the allegations in the plaint. In addition to contesting the claim of the plaintiff on merits, in para. 17 of the written statement, they set-out in detail the facts which accoridng to them clearly establish that the designs of te plaintiff are not registerable under the act and are liable to be cancelled on the grounds mentioned therin. In other words, apart from denying the allegations of infringement and passing off of their product as plaintiff’s products, they urged the grounds on thwich the registration of the plaintiff’s design ought to be cancelled under section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. It is thereafter, they filed an application under Section 22(4) of the Act requesting the City Civil Corut to transfer the suit to the High Court for decision. The said application was opposed by teh plaintiffs on the ground that not only they are enforcing the statutory remedy under Section 22(2) of the Act, but also they are enforrcing their common law right of passing off and therefore Section 22(4) is not attracted to such a right.

5. After hearing both the After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff’s suit is not under Section 22(2) of the Act seeking for damages for violation of his copy right design, but the plaintiff’s relief is for declaration that the defendants or their men are not entitled to manufacture, sell their products in infringement of the rights of suit design registration number; Counsequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men from applying, copying, dealing with or selling etc., of the said suit design and thirdly to direct the defendants to deal with accounts showing the entire quantum of damages pertaining to the suit design and lastly to direct the defendants to hand over the impugned products. He was of the view that the plaintiff’s reliefs claimed is higher than what is provided under Section 22 (2) of the said Act. Section 22 (2) only pertains to damages for the violation, to the maximum extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. But, in this case, plaintiff is not at all seeking any relief under Section 22 (2) ie., damages above. Therefore, only if the defence of revocation of the design is taken in a suit or proceeding for relief under sub-section (2) of Section 22(4), Section 22(4) is attracted and therefore he dismissed the said application.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial judge, second de