1. Both these appeals arise from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the same suit, between the same parties and therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appeal (Lodging) No.71 of 2012 is directed against the order dated 13 January 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's notice of motion under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint filed by respondent No.1 herein under the infringement in passing off under the Trade Mark Act, 1999.

3. Appeal (Lodging) No. 72 of 2012 is directed against the another order dated 13 January 2012 by which the learned Single Judge granted leave under clause 14 of the Letters Patent permitting the plaintiff to prosecute the suit for passing off as well.

4. The learned Single Judge has held that there was no reason to put the plaintiff through the difficulty for filing a separate action for passing off and the infringement action before different Courts, as the appellant-defendant had contended that the alleged cause of action for passing off had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The appellant filed notice of motion invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C read with section 151 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the plaintiff's suit for infringement was not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant-defendant itself has a registered trade mark. The appellant-defendant invoked the provisions of sections 28(3), 29 and 30 subsection 2(e). It was submitted that since both, the plaintiff as well as defendant have registered trade marks, the plaintiff has no right to file suit for infringement.

6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the notice of motion after holding that it may be open to the defendants to raise defences available under the aforesaid provisions of the Trade Mark Act, but that would not mean that the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit for infringement. The learned Judge also held that since the plaint itself does not refer to the defendant's label mark being registered, the notice of motion based on Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be decided on the basis of the statements in the affidavit in reply. For the purpose of deciding the notice of motion under Order 7 Rule 11, the Court is only supposed to see the averments in the plaint and that in the facts of the present case, it cannot be stated that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff has clearly stated that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the mark. Whether in the plaint. the plaintiff succeeds or not is a question which relates to the merits of the contention but on the basis of the statements of the plaintiff in the plaint, it cannot be held that suit is barred by any law.

7. Mr.Dhond, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others, (2004)11 SCC 168, in support of the contention that the Court can pass orders under section 151 to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to put an end to the unncessary litigation.

8. As regards the appeal challenging the order granting leave under clause 14 of the Letters Patent, Mr.Dhond submits that by erroneously rejecting the notice of motion under Order 7 Rule 11 with reference to the action for infringement, the learned Judge has thereafter granted leave and that, therefore, once this Court would hold that the suit for infringement itself is not maintainable, the question of granting leave for the suit for passing off action would not arise.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants has opposed the appeals and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SopanSukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004)3 SCC 137 in support of the contention that with re