JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Application is filed to revoke the leave to sue granted to the Plaintiff on 30.01.2019 in Application No.792 of 2019.)

This Application has been filed filed to revoke the leave to sue granted to the Plaintiff on 30.01.2019 in Application No.792 of 2019.

2. It is the main contention of the applicants/defendants that both the Plaintiff and defendants are carrying on business in Coimbatore and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit has been filed before this Court and leave to sue is obtained by the plaintiff on the alleged ground that the second defendant has its business address in Chennai. The defendants doing their business viz., monobloc pumps and other pumps of various kinds, hand operated agricultural implements, tools, hand pumps, etc., at Coimbatore under the name and style of Sharp Industries since 1979. They have been selling several of its products under the brand name "SHARP". It is his further contention that the defendants have no business address in Chennai and even till date the defendants have not carrying on their business in Chennai in the address stated by the Plaintiff. No part of cause of action has arisen before this Court. By virtue of Section 134 of Trademarks Act 1999, the suit has to be instituted at a place where the plaintiff resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or where Defendant is residing or where cause of action wholly or in part arises. The Plaintiff is residing and carrying on business at Coimbatore where the defendant is also residing.

3. It is the contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Second Defendant has its place of business at Chennai and the goods of the defendants are available at Chennai through the 2nd defendant on a commercial scale. The averment in the plaint alone relevant for deciding cause of action. Whether or not the defendants are carrying on their business in Coimbatore or at Chennai can be decided only at the time of trial. Since the defendants are selling the product of 1st defendant materials at Chennai, this Court is having jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff is residing at Coimbatore and the Defendant is also residing in Coimbatore. Such being the position, filing the suit before this court is not maintainable. At the most the suit has to be filed only before the District of Coimbatore. It is his further contention that the Second Respondent name is added as 'Sharp Industries' and address has given at Chennai. But the Defendant has no business in Chennai. Therefore, his contention that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Even assuming that goods are available with the trade mark of plaintiff and entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction Coimbatore Court, not before this Court. It is also his contention that when the plaintiff and the defendants are residing in a place where the cause of action arose only the courts in that place have a jurisdiction. Even, part of cause of action arise within the local limits, the doctrine of Forum Conveniens has to be applied. In such a situation, only in the courts at Coimbatore alone have jurisdiction. Convenience of all the parties has to be seen and forum conveniens also to be applied. In view of the same, the leave to sue granted to the plaintiff has to be revoked. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Duro Flex Pvt. Ltd., v. Duroflex Sittings System 150 [2014 (6) CTC 577].

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that to decide whether the leave granted should be revoked, the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff alone are relevant. The defence of the defendant that he has not doing any business in Chennai is not relevant at all in deciding the leave applications. It is her contention that the second defendant has its office at Chennai and the