Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, passed in OMP No.320/23 in COMS No.6/2026, whereby an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge on 24.07.2023, has been confirmed. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2 in the civil suit pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge.

2. The appeal as agreed by the parties is only being heard on a preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction as is evident from order dated 12.05.2026 and order dated 29.12.2025. It is the contention of the appellant (defendant No.2) that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Asma Lateef and Anr Vs. Shabbir and Ors. (2024) 4 SCC 696, even for grant of an interim injunction the question of jurisdiction assumes significant importance.

3. The respondent No.1(plaintiff) has instituted a suit claiming therein that the appellant (defendant No.2) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) have infringed a patent owned by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. A perusal of the plaint specifically the cause title reflects that respondent No.2 is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further in the plaint, it has been averred that insofar as respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) is concerned, its principal place of business is situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

4. However, insofar as the appellant (defendant No.2) is concerned the address mentioned in the cause title pertains to New Delhi and Jaipur in Rajasthan. In para 8 of the plaint, it has been averred that insofar as appellant (defendant No.2) is concerned, the said entity is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. With respect to the alleged infringement, it has been averred that respondent No.1(plaintiff) has been able to lay hands on infringing products manufactured and marketed by the appellant (defendant No.2) and offered for sale unauthorizedly by respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) under the brand name “Aladdin” within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Sale invoices in this respect have been placed on record. Reference in this respect can be made to paras 29, 55 and 56 of the plaint.

6. In the written statement filed by appellant (defendant No.2) a categoric stand has been taken with respect to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit filed by respondent No.1(plaintiff). In this respect, it has been categorically averred that respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) is not an authorized dealer of the appellant (defendant No.2). Further it has been contended that the product in question i.e. “Aladdin” is a commodity regulated by the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellant (defendant No.2) has obtained permission to market the said product only in certain specific States in the country, it is further contended in the written statement filed by appellant (defendant No.2) that there is no authorization to sell the infringing product “Aladdin” within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Further it has been categorically averred that the appellant (defendant No.2) has no authorized dealers/retailers within the State of HP.

7. Other than the aforesaid, it has been contended that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has illegally obtained the product in another State wherein the appellant (defendant No.2) is authorized to sell the product and thereafter, it has been re sold in the State of HP with the sole intent and purpose to drag the present appellant (defendant No.2) into the present litigation.

8. According to appellant (defendant No.2) a single trap purchase is insufficient to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence, no cause of action has arisen qua appellant (defendant No.2) to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the CPC. According to appellant (defendant No.2) present case is a classic case of suggestio-falsi for invoking the j