JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

I.A.21995/2022 (under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC)

1. This is an application preferred by the defendant Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of CS (COMM) 101/2022, instituted by the plaintiff Astrazeneca AB.

2. I have heard Mr. Vikas Khera, learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant and Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non applicant, at length.

3. Mr. Khera predicates his case, in this application, on three grounds.

(I) Want of pecuniary jurisdiction

4. Mr Khera first contends that the suit is bad for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, as it is required to be filed before the District Court. Mr. Khera submits that the suit is in the nature of a quia timet action, premised on a mere apprehension that the defendant would launch the allegedly infringing product in the market. Relying on the judgment of a Coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Toni & Guy Products Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Nagpal, 2007 (2014) DLT 309, Mr. Khera submits that a claim for damages is not maintainable in a quia timet suit, founded on mere apprehension. Inasmuch as, in the prese