Arun Bhansali, J.

1. The matter comes upon on an application filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The present suit for permanent injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 ('the Act') was filed by the plaintiff before the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan alleging violation of registered design No. 245-249 in relation to a 'Jug'. It was, inter alia, indicated that the cause of action arose at Jodhpur in July, 2015 when the plaintiff came to know that the goods in violation of the registered design were being sold at Jodhpur and such goods were purchased on 14.08.2015, which violation was continuing.

2. In relation to the territorial jurisdiction, it was averred that the defendants were violating the legal rights of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of Courts at Jodhpur. The petitioner-Firm is situated in Vapi (Gujarat), however, having its business at Jodhpur and even otherwise under Section 22 of the Act and provisions of CPC, the Court has the jurisdiction.

3. In the written statement, filed by the respondent No. 1, when validity of design registration No. 245-249 granted to the plaintiff was challenged, the suit was transferred to this Court under Section 22(4) of the Act.

4. An application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the defendant No. 1 with the averments that the defendant No. 1 is a Company incorporated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) and is doing its business there, the plaintiff is doing its business in Gujarat and the suit for infringement has been filed at Jodhpur by impleading defendant No. 2, who is a dealer situated at Jodhpur, who has no relation with the defendant No. 1 and only with a view to create jurisdiction at Jodhpur, the defendant No. 2 has been added as party, whereas the normal business of the plaintiff is at Gujarat, which shows mala fide on part of the plaintiff and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, as the defendant No. 1 does not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. Several other averments have been made in the application pertaining to the merit of the dispute and questioning the grant of registration to the plaintiff and a prayer has been made that the application be allowed and the plaint be rejected.

5. A reply to the application has been filed by the plaintiff. It is, inter alia, claimed that the plaintiff has disclosed activities of infringement of the registered design by the defendant No. 1, which activity of selling the goods is being carrying on by defendant No. 2 in City of Jodhpur and, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is denied that on account of the normal place of business of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 being at Gujarat and Maharashtra respectively, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court can be taken away and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 reiterated the submissions as raised in the application and noticed hereinbefore. It was submitted that the filing of the present suit at Jodhpur, is mala fide and in fact same has been filed only with a view to harass the defendant No. 1. It was submitted that merely because the goods in question were allegedly purchased by the plaintiff at Jodhpur, the same cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to deal with the matter. It was submitted that in terms of provisions of Section 20 CPC, no part of cause of action has arisen at Jodhpur and admittedly, the defendant No. 1 does not reside at Jodhpur and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the submissions as made in the reply to the application and submitted that part of cause of action does arise at Jodhpur and in terms of Section 20(c) CPC, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Submissions were also made with reference to the provisions of the Act