Patent revocation requires issues to be framed based on pleading; grounds cited without this procedural adherence are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Reply affidavits have not been filed by the respondents despite opportunity having been granted. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further time to file reply affidavits. However, keeping in view the fact that notices had been issued in the present matter on 26th August, 2021, this Court is of the view that the respondents have had sufficient time to file reply affidavits. Accordingly, the request for additional time to file reply affidavits is declined.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 10th August, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C. No.38 of 2012 filed in CS(COMM) No.977 of 2016, to the extent that it invalidates the Appellant's patent, numbered Indian Patent Number IN240893 (hereinafter, "IN240893"), on the ground under Sections 64 (1)(h) and (k) of the Indian PATENTS ACT , 1970 (the "Act 1970"), while adjudicating, an d decreeing, t he Counterclaim.

3. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that there was no pleading with respect to the grounds of Section 64 (1)(h) or Section 64 (1)(k) of the Act, 1970 in the context of Section 10 of the Act, 1970. He states that no issues were framed or evidence led for the same. He points out that this is especially relevant for the ground of Sect ion 64(1)(h) since proof of the same statutorily requ ires evidence of "a person possessing average skill in, and average knowledge of, the art to which the invention relates". He also states that the learned Single Judge has erroneously treated the patent in question as a process patent.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the ground for revocation of patent under Sections 64 (1)(h) and 64(1)(k) of the Act, 1970 in the context of Section 10 of the Act, 1970 are questions of law and not questions of fact and arise from the terms of the Patent itself. He, however, admits that no issue with regard to Sections 64 (1)(h) and 64(1)(k) of the Act, 1970 in the context of Section 10 of the Act, 1970 had been framed by the learned Single Judge. He undertakes that in the event the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of revocation of patent under Sections 64 (1)(h) and 64(1)(k) of the Act, 1970 in the context of Section 10 of the Act, 1970, the respondents shall neither amend their pleadings nor lead any additional evidence. He also admit s that the patent which is the subject matter of the suit is both a process and product patent.

5. It is settled law that the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE is an elaborate codification of the principles of natural justice to be applied to civil litigation. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the Courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. (See Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491).

6. In the present case, respondent no.1 had pleaded Section 64 (1)(e), Section 64 (1)(f) as well as Sections 3 (d) and 3(f) read with Sections 64 (1)(d) and 64(1)(k) of the Act, 1970 as grounds for revocation. Though the impugned judgment upholds the validity of IN240893 on all grounds pleaded in the Cou