The Additional District Judge is part and parcel of the District Court and for all purposes, it is a District Court within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act.

( 1 ) UNDER Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as "act" ). It has been provided that no suit for infringement of a registered trade mark, or relating to any right in a registered trade mark or for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 2 ) IN this revision, a short question is involved as to whether the Court of Additional District judge can try and decide the suit instituted in the Court of District Judge and later on transferred to it for trial and decision and whether the Court of Additional District Judge is an inferior Court to a District Court. The "district Court" has been defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act. According to which, "district Court" has the meaning assigned to it in the code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Madho Jain for the revisionist applicant and Sri R. P. Goel. learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Goel for the opposite parties at quite length.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties instituted a suit for relief of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and its agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in diesel engines, pump-sets and generating sets under the Trade Mark "bharat" or "bharat Marchal". The suit was instituted in the Court of district Judge, Agra and was registered as Suit No. 2 of 1995 (M/s. Sterling Machine tools--Plaintiff No. 1, Shivas Industries--plaintiff No. 2 v. A. K. Enterprises defendant ). The notice was issued by the District Judge. Agra and the defendant-revisionist filed written statement. The District Judge then transferred the suit to the Court of 2nd Additional District judge, Agra. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed replication and arguments were heard. The matter was fixed for delivery of judgment on 26th May, 1998. but the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge was lying vacant from June. 1998 as such, the plaintiffs moved an application for transferring the case from that Court. Thereafter, the District Judge transferred the case to the Court of 12th additional District Judge, Agra and then the matter was fixed for rehearing. On 28th May. 1998, the revisionist, for the first time, moved application (53-Ga) to the effect that the Court of 12th additional District Judge has no Jurisdiction to try the suit which was heard and rejected vide order dated 23. 1. 1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision under Section 115. C. P. C.

( 5 ) IN the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. the word "district" has been defined as under :

"district means the local limits of the Jurisdiction of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "district Court"), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction of a High Court. "

( 6 ) THE contention of Sri R. K. Jain is that Additional District Judge cannot be a principal Civil court of original Jurisdiction and there can be only one Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It is not possible to say that although the Additional District Judge is not "principal" civil Court of original jurisdiction", still the suit under Section 105 of the Act can be instituted in the Court of Additional District Judge. His further contention is that the power to transfer of a suit or appeal or other proceedings under Section 24, C. P. C. cannot be invoked to transfer a suit under Section 105 of the Act from the Court of Principal Civil Court of original Jurisdiction to the Court of Additional District Judge unless there is a provision empowering the District Judge to