The judgment clarified the interpretation of the provisions of Order VII rule 10 and rule 11 of the CPC, and Section 13(1A) of the CCA, establishing that the appeal was not maintainable under these provisions.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral)--The respondent-plaintiff before the learned Single Judge, is a company duly incorporated under the laws of India engaged in wet processing equipment for use in quarries, mining & minerals and waste recycling products and also to have established new processes in the iron ore industry by developing custom build washing systems to improve the quality, productivity, efficiency and profitability with a view to ensure the preservation of natural resources.

2. The respondent, claims to have filed an application for grant of patent for the invention titled as "System/Device Process for Classification of Various Materials" in India on 3rd September, 2013 and been granted patent i.e. Patent No.307249 [Hereinafter referred as "IN'249"] on 12th February, 2019 for a period of twenty years from the date of filing of the application. The respondent claims to have filed similar applications for registration of the same patent in various other countries. The respondent also claims to have obtained a Certificate of Registration for its Design No.262629 [Hereinafter referred as "ID'629"] dated 20th March, 2015, which is valid for a period of fifteen years from the date of filing of the application.

3. The respondent, claiming to have come to know that the appellant-defendant no.2 before the learned Single Judge was engaging in manufacturing, offering for sale, selling impugned products similar to its suit patent in the last week of November, 2018, instituted a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant and one of its Director with respect to the product "FM 120 CONEXUS" or any other product covered by its Patent IN'249 and also with respect to its registered Design ID'629 along with other ancillary reliefs.

4. Upon service, appellant filed an application under Order VII rule 10 and rule 11 [Hereinafter referred as "application"] of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter referred as "CPC"] for return/rejection of the plaint before the learned Single Judge primarily raising two issues, firstly with respect to the learned Single Judge having no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and secondly relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aloys Wobben and Anr. vs. Yogesh Mehra and Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 360 as to the non-maintainability of the suit before the learned Single Judge.

5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel(s) for the parties, especially the appellant, learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid application holding that it is trite law that while deciding an application of like nature, the averments in the plaint have to be looked into by way of demurrer. However, the learned Single Judge left the issue of territorial jurisdiction to be decided after the parties have led their evidence.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present appeal raising various grounds. However, today, prior to commencement of arguments by the learned Senior Counsel for appellant, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent placing reliance upon HPL (India) Limited and Ors. vs. QRG Enterprises and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6955 and drawing our attention to the recent judgment rendered by this very Court in Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 227 candidly, and in our opinion rightly, as would unfurl hereinafter, so as to save the precious time and effort of this Court and both parties involved, raised the preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the present appeal before this Court, contending that the same being beyond the purview of Order XLIII rule 1(a)^{1[ORDER XLIII APPEALS FROM ORDERS1. Appeal from orders.-An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely:(a) an order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10A o}