IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 646 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SURYA NATARAJ SHARMA S/O H.N.SURYANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. NO.23, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN A.C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

IBIBO GROUP PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT Digitally signed 3RD FLOOR, KARLE PREMIUM, by SHARADAVANI NO.1, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, B OPP MANIPAL HOSPITAL, Location: High Court of KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 008.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANKEERTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN OS NO.766/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALUR, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. IV FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant in O.S.No.766/2018 is the revision petition challenging the order dated 05.07.201 on I.A.No.4 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under

3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-

respondent in O.S.No.766/2018 with the following prayer with a decree of declaration that plaintiff registered owner of the trademark ‘Red bus’ bearing registration No.154, 6162 in class 39 dated 03.04.2007 and defendant or anybody else claiming under defendant is to be restrained from using the same trademark.

3.2. Defendant after entering appearance, filed written statement denying the plaint allegations so also the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by contending that plaintiff being the booking agent as per Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, did not register as is required under the said provision and therefore, he is an illegal booking agent and as such, he cannot maintain the relief of injunction or declaration and thus, sought for rejection of the plaint.

3.3. Said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed written objections.

3.4. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, by impugned order, dismissed the application.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that an illegal entity cannot maintain the suit for declaration and injunction as per Section 47 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, per se suit is not maintainable.

6. He would invite the attention of this Court to Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contented that plaintiff being the booking agent, has violated Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a punishable offence. Therefore, continuation of the suit would result in miscarriage of justice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material law on record, admittedly, plaintiff is the owner of the trademark as ‘Red Bus’ as aforesaid.

10. The allegation against the defendant and the plaintiff is that he is also making use of the said trademark and illegally trading. Defendant being not a person who is owner of the trademark ‘Red Bus’, started misusing the said trademark whereby the business of the plaintiff is deviated resulting in loss to the plaintiff who is the registered trademark owner.

11. Whether at all, the defendant misused the trademark or not is a matter that needs to be thrashed out