JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Review Application has been filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to review the order dated 19.04.2021 passed in A.No.181 of 2021 in C.S.No. 190 of 2020 and consequently dismiss A.No. 181 of 2021.)

(The case has been heard through video conferencing)

1. The order of this Court dated 19/04/2021 in Application No. 181/2021 directing the Registry to return the plaint for the plaintiff to present the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction is sought to be reviewed in this application on the following grounds:

“A. The Order dated 19.04.2021 is liable to be Reviewed as there is an error on face of the record. The GST certificate filed before this Hon’ble Court along with the Note on Submissions was not looked into by this Hon’ble Court and as such there is a factual error. The GST certificate being a statutory document is an unimpeachable document and ought to have been considered. The said document clearly mentions the address of the sales offices of Petitioner’s company in Tamilnadu as being the address shown in the Plaint. This document has not been opposed by the Respondent herein. This be so, this Hon’ble Court ought to have considered the same and as such the recording that no document was filed in this respect is contrary to Record and as such the Order dated 19.04.2021 is liable to be Reviewed and the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court be confirmed.

B. The Hon’ble Court failed to consider that the Petitioner herein, in its Counter to the Application to Reject the Plaint, had clearly set out the dates on which it had shifted its offices. The Respondent herein, despite such specific averments, did not file any Reply disputing these assertions. This be so, the issues raised, being factual, ought to have been relegated to Trial and not decided in the present Application. The Order dated 19.04.2021 is liable to be Reviewed on this Ground also.

C. In any event, the objection taken by the Respondent herein being purely technical the Hon’ble Court ought to have provided a further opportunity to substantiate the fact they were having sales office within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at the time of institution of the Suit. A decision passed after providing such further opportunity would have served the ends of Justice. The adverse inference drawn by the Hon’ble Court without providing such an opportunity, is contrary to Law and as such liable to be Reviewed.”

2. The suit for permanent injunction filed alleging that the defendant is infringing the registered trade mark ‘TIRUMALA MILK’ and passing off. The suit filed in this Court claiming that the plaintiff is having its sales office in Chennai and voluntarily carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the plaint, it is specifically averred that, in view of Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit at Chennai.

3. The defendant stating that the plaintiff is not carrying on business in the address mentioned in the plaint and no cause of action has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, filed Appln.No. 181/2021 to reject the plaint.

4. On considering the plaint a averment and the documents filed along with the plaint, this Court held that, the plaintiff has not produced document to show, they are carrying on business at Senthil Nagar, Chennai, where they claim to have their sales office. However, that is not the ground to reject the plaint as prayed in the application. Hence, ordered to return the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.

5. In the said factual scenario, this application to review is filed. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that, the oral submissions of the counsels in the Application No. 181/2021 was heard on 08/04/2021. This Court granted leave to the parties to file their written submission. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the written submissions along with 3