The distinction between cancellation/revocation of registration and infringement of rights under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001, and the stringent conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Abhishek Saketh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.1052 of 2019 in O.S.No.589 of 2012.

3. It may be mentioned that respondent herein as the plaintiff has filed a suit under Sections 65 and 66 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) seeking the following reliefs :

“In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree:

i. granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in the maize variety bearing denomination KMH-25K55 which infringes the subject matter of the Plaintiff’s registered 30B07 (X-1280M) of Maize (Zea mays L) variety, from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in the variety KMH-25K55 thereby amounting to passing off of the Plaintiff’s registered plant variety 30B07;

ii. Consequently restrain the Defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from stealing the proprietary germplasm of the Plaintiff’s registered plant variety 30B07 (X-1280M) of Maize (Zea mays L) and from misappropriating the proprietary germplasm of the Plaintiff’s 30B07 (X1280M) of Maize (Zea mays L) variety and deriving unjust enrichment by dealing in the variety KMH25K55;

iii. Consequently direct the Defendant to surrender for destruction all the infringing products being sold under the variety denomination KMH-25K55;

iv. Award damages of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant on account of the unauthorized use and misappropriation of Plaintiff’s registered plant variety 30B07 (X-1280M) of Maize (Zea mays L);

v. Any order for rendition of accounts;

vi. Any other relief as stipulated under Section 66 of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 severally, jointly or as a whole;

vii. Cost of the suit;”

3.1. The said suit was registered as O.S.No.589 of 2012 and is pending on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. Respondent has also filed an injunction petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C for injuncting the defendant from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and dealing in the Maize variety KMH-25K55, directly or indirectly which infringes respondent’s registered 30B07 variety till disposal of the suit. The same was registered as I.A.No.2225 of 2012.

5. Petitioner who is the defendant in the suit has filed objection to I.A.No.2225 of 2012 to which respondent has filed reply affidavit.

6. Be that as it may, petitioner as the defendant has filed written statement in O.S.No.589 of 2012.

7. It is stated that as on date no order has been passed on the injunction petition.

8. During pendency of the suit, defendant (petitioner) filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C for rejection of plaint. It was contended that there was no cause of action to file the suit for infringement against the registered variety, as the defendant (petitioner) has a registered variety enjoying statutory protection under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (briefly ‘the 2001 Act’ hereinafter). It was also contended that under Section 89 of the 2001 Act there is a clear statutory bar on civil cou