The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaint must disclose a cause of action for patent infringement, and the report of the Scientific Adviser must be in accordance with the law as per the provisions of the Patents Act and Rules.

1. The Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 9.7.2008 in I.A.No.710 of 2007 in O.S.No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.

2. The appellant/plaintiff/Electronic Machine Tools Limited, filed suit in O.S.No.60 of 2007 for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent/D1 by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, dealers or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered Patent Nos.188585 and 190675 and to direct the first defendant-Power Engineers, to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by it through the sale of the products sold under the infringed Patent Nos.188585 and 190675 and to direct payment of such profits to the plaintiff for the infringement committed by the first defendant and for costs.

3. The appellant/plaintiff obtained an interim order of appointment of Commissioner and for seizure of the product. After receipt of the summons, D1 filed a petition under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC, read with Section 48 and 104 read with Section 108 of the Patents Act, for rejection of the plaint.

4. The trial Court, after giving opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/D1, rejected the plaint stating that there is no cause of action against D1 for filing the suit, against which, the plaintiff has come forward with the present First Appeal.

5. At the time of filing the present First Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has obtained an order of interim injunction. Furthermore, the first respondent/D1, filed an application for appointment of Scientific Adviser to inspect the materials seized so as to find out as to whether there is infringement of the Patent; in pursuance of the same, Mrs.S.Punithavathi, Scientific Adviser/Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, inspected and verified the product and filed report.

6. Now, the appellant/plaintiff filed the application to scrap the Scientific Adviser's report, stating that she is not the competent person and she is only the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, and as per the provisions of Patents Act, the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, is not the competent person to inspect the product and file report. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff prayed for allowing the First Appeal.

7. This Court has to decide as to whether the rejection of plaint by the trial Court is correct or not.

8. Admittedly, the application for rejection of plaint is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as follows:

"Order 7: Plaint:

Rule 11: Rejection of plaint: - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Madras High Court Amendment: For clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-

"Where the relief claimed is properly valued, bu