- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 297 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. M/S ARS STEELS AND ALLOY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. N. PRABHU DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT D-109, 2ND FLOOR LBR COMPLEX, ANNA NAGAR EAST CHENNAI - 600 102, TAMIL NADU, INDIA. 2. M/S ARS STEELS AND ALLOY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AT NO.61, AHOBALE NILAYA INDLABELE VILLAGE OPP. VHF LAYOUT, BIDDARGUPE POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ATTIBELE BENGALURU - 562 107. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. CJANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 AND: SUNVIK STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AT NO.23, 3RD FLOOR, MES ROAD BAHUBALI NAGAR, JALAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 013 KARNATAKA, INDIA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANITHA N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 4564/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.R.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Keshav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Anitha, learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 2. Revision petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4564/2017 rejecting the application filed vide I.A.No.4 under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Prayer in the application reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this application, thereby passing the judgment on admission made by the plaintiff and dismiss the suit in the best interest of justice and equity.” 4. In support of said application in affidavit, in paragraph Nos.4 to 11 it has been contended as under: "4. I state that the plaintiff in his counter statement filed before the Controller of Designs, Kolkata in the cancellation proceedings filed by the defendant had admitted the following facts. The following admissions are made by the plaintiff in page number 4, para number 6 and in page number 8 para number B III of the counter statement dated 25/09/2017 filed before the Controller of Designs, Kolkatta. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 a. Para 6. ..........It was found that all other manufacturers were making single X, triple X and multiple X ribs design on the TMT bars. It was also found that no other manufacturer manufacturers design of ribs on their TMT bars. [in page number 4, para number 6) b. Para B III. ........It is submitted that despite there are several companies having X rib patterns, the abovementioned registered design of the registered proprietor consists of XX rib patterns or cross lines along with diamond shape being one of the Novelty features in page number 8 para number B III] 5. I state that the plaintiff had admitted that there are several companies having X rib patterns and all other manufacturers for making single X, triple X and multiplex ribs design on the TMT bars. 6. I state that the identical / similar designs are available in the market, the plaintiff design is not a novel and original. Hence, the Plaintiff's registered design is previously registered in India and published in India prior to the date the registration. The registered design is not a new design and also not an original design as per the Designs Act 2000. Even according to the Plaintiff, the registered design has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 been disclosed to the public in India by use prior to the filing of the design application. 7. Moreover, the plaintiff in his brochure had admitted as follows: a. Superior 'XX' rib design for excellent bonding between cement and steel. 8. I state that the design registered by the plaintiff is a functional design and is not a design under the Design Act 2000. It is not only the plaintiff but even other manufacturers including the defendant are claiming that the 'X' rib design (either double cross or triple cross) is binding the cement with the TMT bars; the functional aspect of the registered X rib design. Hence, the registered design is purely functional and this not capable of being a design under the Design Act 2000. 9. I state that the design registered by the plaintiff is appearing to be baring the shape, configuration, pattern or ornament features of CROSS LINES' is in the public domain and adoption of the same by the Plaintiff is illegal and is not valid under the Designs act 2000. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 10. I state that the Plaintiff had clearly and categorically admitted that the registered design is already in the public domain and all other manufacturers were making single X, triple X and multiple X ribs design on TMT bars. The registered design is a functional design and not allowed to be registered under the designs act 2000. 11. I state that the registered design based on which the suit has been filed by the plaintiff is already adopted by the many manufacturers even before the registration of the design by the plaintiff. The registration of the design is invalid and non-est in the eye of law. The continuation of the suit will seriously affect the defendant's right and cause irreprable loss and injury to the defendants. Plaintiff in his counter statement admitted that the said X rib design was already in use among the construction rods and TMT manufacturers in India. Similar or identical X ribs design was and is still in use even before the plaintiff's adoption of the X rib design. Hence, the registered design is a design part of the public domain.” 5. In the nutshell, defendant wanted dismissal of the suit based on the plaint averments as he has stated that design with ‘XX’ rib patterns are freely available in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 market. Therefore, continuation of the suit amounts to abuse of process and when there is an admission, any of the parties can seek the judgment based on the admission. 6. Plaintiff opposed the said application and learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions on I.A.No.4, dismissed the application filed by the defendants vide order dated 04.10.2023. 7. The order of the Trial Court in paragraph No.6 reads as under: "6. It is true that Order 12 Rule 6 speaks about the passing of Judgment on admissions given by the parties in the suit. Generally it refers to the admissions found in the written statement after filing of the suit. In the case on hand, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that the defendant has infringed the design of the plaintiff. Subsequently the defendant filed a written statement and thereafter this court has framed issues as on 4/9/2019. Subsequently the plaintiff got examined its witness as PW.1 and when the case is posted for further chief of PW.1 on 4/11/2022, the plaintiff filed IA No.3. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 Thereafter, on 13/12/2022, the defendant filed the present IA. The prayer of the defendant in the written statement also for the dismissal of suit. The plaintiff's definite case is that, the defendant has infringed the design of plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the court by paying the court fee and also examined witness as PW.1 in part and also got marked several documents in support of the plaint case. When the plaintiff approached the court by paying the court fee, the court has to permit the plaintiff to substantiate its claim by giving oral and documentary evidence. The claim of the defendant under the application is the defence in the suit that has to be proved during the course of trial. Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that the defendant has failed to make out sufficient grounds to dismiss the suit." 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge failed to understand the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. In the case on hand, trial has already commenced and witness for the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 in part and documents were also marked. 13. It is not a case where the plaintiff has suppressed any material fact. On the contrary, in the plaint itself, there are specific averments made by the plaintiff as to the ‘mark’ that the plaintiff has registered and the alleged infringement. 14. Defendants in their affidavit as referred to supra, has stated that plaintiff in their counter statement filed before the Controller of Designs, Kolkata in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 cancellation proceedings, has contended that all other manufacturers were making single X, triple X and multiple X ribs design on the TMT steel bars. 15. It is also contented by the plaintiff that no other manufacturer manufactures design of ribs in their TMT bars. But it is the contention of defendants that plaintiff has also made an admission before the controller that having ‘X’ rib patterns, the registered design of the proprietor consists of ‘XX’ rib patterns or cross-lines along with the diamond shape being one of the novelty features. Therefore, similar patterns are available in the market. As such, the suit relief cannot be granted and sought for dismissal of the suit. 16. Whether at all the registered mark of which the plaintiff is the proprietor, has been infringed by the defendants or not is a subject matter of trial. Trial has already commenced. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 17. No doubt, plaintiff has made few admissions before the Controller at Kolkata. Plaintiff is in the witness box; such admissions are to be brought to the notice of the plaintiff by confronting necessary documents and cross-examine PW.1. 18. At any rate, if there is any suppression of material by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff can be non- suited. 19. But in the case on hand, plaintiff has disclosed all the material facts and has already deposed before the Court by placing documents at his command to prove the suit claim. 20. Under such circumstances, the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking for the judgment of dismissal is impermissible which has been rightly concluded by the Trial Court if not in happy words. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49497 CRP No. 297 of 2024 21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 22. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, dismissal of the revision petition shall not affect the rights of the defendants in the pending trial and defendants are at liberty to canvass all favourable points in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 CT: BHK