1. Suit filed under O7 R1 before Munsif Court for right to sell and manufacture product throughout the world- Suit valued as per Section 25(d) Suit valuation act(subject-matter of the suit is in capable of valuation)-Munsif sent summons and as well as permits the Plaintiff to take private notice- Both summons served on the Defendant- Summons are with regard to injunction-in view of non appearance of the defendant, the interim order passed is made absolute- the suit summons are also served on defendant private and through court- due to non appearance, the defendant is set ex parte and date is fixed for ex parte evidence- Proof of Affidavit filed and ex parte evidence taken and thereafter matter posted on 10.12.2012 for passing ex parte decree- At this juncture, instead of passing an order, the District Munsif states that;
“ As per the Annual inspection note, the Hon’ble Principal District Judge given a direction in this case is that the main issue in that suit is with regard to the Design and this suit is not maintainable before this court.
Hence, in the said direction by the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, this Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and returned the Plaint and to be represented in proper court”
2. In view of the above, the questions to be answered are as under;
a. Whether the action of munsif in returning the plaint can be taken for challenge under Article 227 and 115 CPC.
b. Whether setting ex parte can be construed that the Munsif had already applied his mind and come to a conclusion on the issue;
c. Can at this above stage, whether munsif can return the plaint suo moto;
d. The decided legal positions states that the court cannot suo moto review its decision unless an application has been moved by either party;
e. The relief sought for in the plaint is for a declaratory to manufacture, sell, license the product as was been done all these years;
f. Can a court come to conclusion that such a prayer will come under granting of design under the design Act;
g. Since the plaint itself is retuned on account of the instructions of the district court, whether the plaintiff could be justified in filing a CRP under 227
please provide anwers with provisions of law and judicial decisions. thanks
