- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.653 OF 2023 (IPR) BETWEEN: 1. PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: REGENT CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI – 400 021. AND ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT RAMKRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, OFF M. VASANJI ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI – 400 059. REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD, LEGAL AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. MR. ASHEESH GUPTA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANAND PETRO CHEMICALS LUBE NO.11, 15TH CROSS, VISHVANEEDAM POST, MUTTURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 SUNADAKATTE, BENGALURU – 560 091. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MRS. MANJU MAHAVEER JAIN, W/O MR. MAHAVEER JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS NO.189/2021 ON THE FILE OF XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'), being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No.189/2021 by the XVIII Additional City - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 Civil Judge, Bengaluru1, thereby, I.A.No.IV filed for return of plaint was rejected. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff's trademarks namely "UNICORN” and “MOTO GE-7" are distinct from the defendant's trademark, namely “MOTOMAX” and the plaintiff's names are dissimilar and also claimed the relief of restraining the defendant by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with the business of the plaintiff. 5. The defendant entered appearance and filed I.A.No.IV under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of the plaint, as the plaintiff does not have cause of action to file a suit before the Court at Bengaluru since the defendant is manufacturing and carrying on business at Mumbai. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 Therefore, as per Section 20 of CPC, the plaintiff does not have cause of action to file a suit before the Civil Court at Bengaluru, as no cause of action arises there and the defendant is carrying on business in Mumbai, but not at Bengaluru and also does not have any branch or any operation at Bengaluru. Hence, prays to return the plaint. 6. The Trial Court, after considering the application and arguments dismissed the said application on the reason that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for infringement of trademark and therefore, attracts Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 (for short ‘TM Act, 1999’) and Section 20 (c) of CPC is not applicable. Therefore, found that the suit is maintainable. Hence, dismissed the application. 7. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 8. Upon hearing the lengthy arguments canvassed by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the plaint, IA and impugned order, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not for protection of his right against infringement of trademark; rather, the prayer of the plaintiff made in the suit that to declare the plaintiff’s trademarks “UNICORN” and “MOTO GE-7” are distinct from the defendant’s trademark “MOTOMAX” and that both trademarks are dissimilar and different. Therefore, the prayer claimed is not for infringement of trademark. When this being the fact, the Trial Court assumed itself upon the application that the relief claimed in the suit is a suit for infringement of trademark. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court misinterpreted the scheme of the suit. 9. It is submitted that the defendant has filed a suit at Mumbai for infringement of trademark against the plaintiff and there is an operation of order of injunction is in force. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the legal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 notice issued by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to cease infringing the copyrights of the defendant and the registered trademark, etc. The said legal notice issued by the defendant is not calling upon the plaintiff to stall the business activities of the plaintiff, but the notice issued by the defendant is not to carry out business activities on products resembling the trademark and copyright of the defendant. Based on this legal notice, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, but this aspect is not considered by the Trial Court. 10. Also, upon considering the interim order, the Trial Court has not whispered anything about the suit instituted by the defendant at Mumbai alleging infringement of trademark against the plaintiff. But, when consideration of the suit is concerned, the plaintiff’s suit is not that of infringement of trademark attracting Section 134 of the TM Act, 1999, but the Trial Court has assumed that the suit is filed for infringement of trademark attracting Section 134 of the TM Act, 1999. Hence, many - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 of the aspects as canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties have not been considered by the Trial Court while dealing with the application filed for return of the plaint. Therefore, prima facie, the order passed by the Trial Court is itself misdirected by drawing impression as if the suit is filed for infringement of trademark. Hence, the application filed by the defendant deserves to be re-heard. 11. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is requires to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits involved in the application and in the suit, the case is remanded to the Trial Court. All the contentions are left open to be canvassed by both the parties while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023 ORDER i. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 01.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No.189/2021 by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. All the contentions are left open. v. No order as to costs. Whatever observations made above are only for considering the petition and shall not be construed as conclusions on the discussions and merits involved in the case. The trial court shall consider the application afresh on its merits without being influenced by the above observations. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31