The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of whether a cause of action has arisen at a particular place is a question of fact to be decided after recording evidence, and the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000, govern the infringement and piracy of registered designs.

M. Venugopal, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 9. 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.6025 of 2007 in Civil Suit No.798 of 2006, wherein, the learned single Judge revoked the leave already granted by the Court by order dated 110. 2006 in Application No.4056 of 2006 in Civil Suit No.798 of 2006 (C.S. Diary No.27805 of 2006).

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed Application No.4056 of 2006 in C.S.No.798 of 2006, praying to grant leave to sue the respondent/defendant and the same has been ordered on 110. 2006 by the learned single Judge of this Court.

3. Subsequently, the respondent/defendant filed Application No.6025 of 2007 in C.S.No.798 of 2006, praying for revocation of leave already granted on 110. 2006 in Application No.4056 of 2006 in C.S.No.798 of 2006.

4. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 9. 2007, ordered Application No.6025 of 2007 to revoke the leave, as prayed for, inter-alia observing that, "if there is nothing to show that sales have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, then leave cannot be granted. There is no other circumstance, which justifies the filing of the suit, within the jurisdiction of this Court because both the respondent and the applicant carry on business elsewhere. Therefore, not only on the ground of forum conveniens, but also because the applicant prima facie failed to establish to the satisfaction of this Court that sales had in fact taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, leave must be revoked. For deciding whether the leave granted should be revoked, one looks only to the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the applicant and it is on the basis of his own pleadings that the applicant must establish his case for grant of leave. In this case, the applicant has not succeeded in doing so. Leave granted in Application No.4056 of 2006 is revoked. Application No.6025 of 2007 to revoke the leave is ordered as prayed for.

5. The case of the appellant/plaintiff--Parle Products Private Limited (Mumbai), is that it is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing inter-alia the biscuits and confectionaries; they have developed new and original packet designs having several novel features in its shape, configuration and surface pattern; with a view to protect the unique design and novelty of the packets, on 35. 2001, the plaintiff filed three applications for registration of the said designs for biscuit-packets with the Office of the Controller of Patents and Designs, and the said designs were accepted and registered under the Design Registration Nos.185711, 185712 and 185713, dated 35. 2001 under Class 09-01 as per the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 and the Designs Rules, 2001; another two new and original biscuit packet designs having novel features in its shape, configuration and surface pattern, were accepted and duly registered under the Design Registration Nos.188156 and 188157, dated 12. 2002 under Class 09-7 of the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 and Designs Rules, 2001 and that the registration of the said designs are valid and subsisting.

6. The plaintiff further pleads that as a registered proprietor, it has acquired copyright of the said design and thus is exclusively entitled to apply the said designs to biscuit packets and to use and manufacture for the purpose of sale, such packets having the novel shape and configuration, etc; the plaintiff has also acquired an enviable reputation and goodwill in the market among the purchasing public and recently, it has come to know that the defendant-Surya Food and Agro Limited (Noida, Uttar Pradesh) has started marketing several varieties of biscuits in the name of "PRIYAGOLD" in packets bearing shape, configuration and surface pattern, which is a fraudulent and obvious imitation of the plaintiffs registered Design Nos.185711, 185712, 185713, 188156 and 188157 and that the defendant has a