JUDGMENT

REVIEW PET. 129/2018

1. By the present review petition the petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 3rd January, 2018 passed by this Court whereby the application filed by the respondent being IA No. 3139/2017 under Order VII Rule 10 was allowed and the plaint was directed to be returned to be filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Challenging the judgment dated 3rd January, 2018 the petitioner had preferred an appeal being FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2018 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a petition seeking review of the order dated 3rd January, 2018, as according to the plaintiff, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act (in short T.M. Act) was not considered in the judgment under review.

3. According to learned counsel for the plaintiff/review petitioner the plaintiff's principal place of business is in Delhi as pleaded in para 64 of the plaint at page 85. It is claimed that the registered office and the principal place of business of a company need not necessarily be the same and it would require evidence to determine which is the principal place of business of a company and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage and hence under Section 134 (2) of the