SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The original plaintiff/respondent, pharmaceutical company has sued the first defendant/appellant, as also the second respondent/C & F agent as the second defendant on account of the use of identical trademark by the appellant in respect of identical products. The trademark of the first respondent/original plaintiff is ''ADMENTA'' and the appellant is using ''ADMENSIA.''

2. The original plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application for injunction and interim orders were granted in favour of the original plaintiff. The appellant, as defendant, moved for vacating the stay and also raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

3. The impugned order has dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction and opined in favour of the original plaintiff.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on different dates and even today.

5. We are not touching the merits of the controversy because that is still pending consideration before the learned single Judge. Suffice to say that the cause of action paragraph is paragraph-19 and the issue of territorial jurisdiction has been dealt with in paragraph-20 of the plaint.

6. Paragraph-20 reads as under:

''20. The plaintiff is having its office and carries on business at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cause of action for infringement of registered trademark has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is statutorily entitled to file the suit for infringement of its registered trademark under Section 134 of the Act before this Hon'ble Court, where the plaintiff carries on their business. Further, the 2nd defendant, who is the clearing and forwarding agent of the 1st defendant is also carrying on its business at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the entire cause of action in respect of infringement and passing off has arisen at Chennai and this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.''

7. The aforesaid thus shows that the plaintiff is seeking the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court on the original side on the basis of the plaintiff being located at Chennai.

8. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in a sense is an exception to the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where they permit institution of the suit on the basis of the location of the office of the plaintiff which is not in doubt.

9. The defence of the appellant really is that there are no sales at all within the jurisdiction of this Court and thus, the original plaintiff should not be permitted to sue in Chennai.

10. We had posed certain questions emerging from the arguments to be factually answered by the appellant in our order dated 11.07.2016.

11. An affidavit was filed affirmed on 21.07.2016.

12. The questions posed by this Court and the answers are as under:-

(i) Whether the appellant as on date, has a branch office in Chennai?

Answer: The appellant does not have any branch office in Chennai.

(ii) Whether M/s. Moti Chandra Associates partnership continues to be a Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) Agent of the appellant?

Answer: Yes.

(iii) Whether there is any other C & F agent of the appellant in Chennai?

Answer: No.

(iv) Whether the product in question was being sold through any C & F agent or local office by the appellant in Chennai at any point of time?

Answer: No.

(v) In which specific regions, is the product ''ADMENSIA'' being sold by the appellant?

Answer: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West Bengal regions till the ad interim injunction was granted.

13. However, on the next date of hearing on 25.07.2016, learned counsel for the first respondent brought to our notice an extract downloaded from the Commercial Tax Department website showing the appellant giving a local address to obtain the TI