JUDGMENT :

C. Saravanan, J.

1. By this common order, all the three Original Side Appeals filed by the appellant are being disposed.

2. These Original Side Appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the impugned common order dated 21.01.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Application Nos. 4916, 4920 and 4923 of 2019 in C.S. No. 410 of 2019.

3. By the impugned common order, the learned Single Judge has allowed Application Nos. 4916, 4920 and 4923 of 2019 in C.S. No. 410 of 2019 filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents (1st to 3rd defendants) and has revoked the leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff to sue them. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed by the plaintiff.

4. The above suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for the alleged violation of appellant's Patent No. 282429 by the 1st to 3rd respondents/1st to 3rd defendants along with 4th respondent/4th defendant.

5. Earlier, an ex-parte order dated 03.07.2019 was passed in A. No. 4512 of 2019 and a leave to sue the 1st to 3rd respondents/1st to 3rd defendants was granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the above suit was numbered. In the above suit, the appellant/plaintiff had also filed O.A. No. 647 of 2019 to injunct these respondents (i.e., the 1st to 3rd defendants) from infringing the aforesaid patent of the appellant herein. An ex-parte order was also passed on 05.07.2019.

6. Under these circumstances, the 1st to 3rd respondents/1st to 3rd defendants filed four different applications separately (in all 12 applications) (i) to suspend the interim order dated 05.07.2019, (ii) to revoke the leave granted on 03.07.2019 under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and (iii) to reject the appellant/plaintiff Under Orders 7 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code.

7. The applications filed for revoking leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent vide Application Nos. 4916, 4920 and 4923 of 2019 in C.S. No. 410 of 2019 came to be disposed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned common order dated 21.01.2020.

8. Prior to passing of the impugned common order, the ex-parte injunction granted on 05.07.2019 was suspended by an order dated 16.07.2019 based on an undertaking of the 1st to 3rd respondents/1st to 3rd defendants agreeing to furnish bank guarantee on or before 26.07.2019, failing which, suspension of the interim order was to stand automatically vacated.

9. This undertaking was in apparently terms of an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a similar proceedings initiated before it by the appellant/plaintiff herein against another person who had allegedly infringed the aforesaid patent of the appellant/plaintiff.

10. Operating portion of the impugned common order of the learned Single Judge revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent reads as follows:

32. This Court, after reading the explanation to part of cause of action given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots case supra and Section 104-A of the Act holds that, the parties, who are cast with the burden of proof as mentioned in Section 104-A of the Act, are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. They are all carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The expert, whose opinion relied by the plaintiff to prove infringement of the patent also resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The infinitesimally small part of cause of action namely the impugned product being sold in Chennai by the 4th defendant, even assumed to be true, is not the pivotal issue which will determine the dispute. Further, the plaintiff has not placed any prima facie material to show that the 4th defendant is the authorised dealer/Agent or stockist of the manufacturer of the impugned product, to link the defendants 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant.

33. Perusin