JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.

2. By the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it does not disclose a cause of action; that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised person, and; that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

3. I.A. No. 9648/2006 has been filed to say that defendant No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and that he has been imp leaded as defendant No. 1 merely to avoid the proceedings being noticed by the defendants in the cause list and with a view to obtain an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction behind the back of the defendant No. 2 and 3.

4. Taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first, I proceed to deal with the objections that the plaint and the documents filed with it, do not disclose a cause of action against the defendant.

5. While dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order 7, in order to decide whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not, the Court has to examine only the allegations made in the plaint and the documents filed with it. Where the allegations made in the plaint, prima facie, disclose a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. [See Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Rameshwar Dass Bishan Dayal and Another, (1995) 60 DLT 271.

6. The plaintiff states that it is carrying on the business of manufacture of various consumer products. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction, rendition of account and damages on the basis of the alleged infringement of its patent in respect of a gravity fed water purification system, by the defendants.

7. The plaintiff, it is averred, had in the year 2002 developed and invented a gravity fed water purification system assuring a high degree of microbiological purity in the drinking water it delivers. The plaintiff made application No. 539/MUM/2003 for patent registration in India in June 2002. The said application was notified for opposition purposes on 13th May 2005. It is averred that no opposition was raised by any third party within the prescribed period and consequently the plaintiff were granted patent number 198316 on January 9, 2006 which is still valid and subsisting. Corresponding International Application was also made with the European Patent Office on 31st December, 2003.

8. The claim in the patent of the plaintiff's product reads as follows :

1.1) A gravity fed water purification system comprising a filtration unit adapted to filter particulate material, and a Chemical purifying unit containing a Chemical purifying agent, in which the Chemical purifying unit is house in a sealed chamber and is in fluid communication with the filtration unit such that water treated by the filtration unit is then gravity fed into the Chemical purifying unit and retained therein for a predetermined period, after which the water exits the system via a scavenger means which is adapted to recover leached Chemical purifying agent.

2) A water purification system according to claim 1, which comprises a purification unit comprising a top chamber and a bottom chamber, which are separated by a partition, and in which the filtration unit is secured to the partition and housed in the top chamber, and the Chemical purifying unit is housed in the bottom chamber.

3) A water purification system according to claim 1 or claim 2, in which the filtration unit comprises a carbon block.

4) A water purification system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, in which a water exit passage from the Chemical purifying unit is provided in a configuration such that water cannot exit through the water exit passage until it has resided for a defined time in the Chemical purifying unit.

9. It is further averred that th