D. A. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner New Prabhat Tiles Works a partnership firm carrying on business at Wadhwan City has filed this application under sec. 56 read with sec. ill of the Trade and Merchandise Act 1958 for rectification of the Register alleging that the registration of the opponents trade mark is invalid. The opponent Prajapati Tiles Company a registered partnership firm claims to be the registered proprietor of Trade Mark No. 181343 which was registered on September 6 1957 under the Trade Mark Act 1940 The trade mark is in respect of Manglori tiles used for roofing. The present petitioner also carries on business of manufacturing Manglori roofing tiles. The opponent the registered proprietor of the trade mark filed a suit against the present petitioner complaining of infringement of the registered trade mark and for injunction and accounts in the District Court at Surendranagar being Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 1971. The present petitioner was the defendant in the suit and on the service of the summons the present petitioner appeared and filed its written statement inter alia contending that the registration of the plaintiffs trade mark was invalid. After this defence was put forward the present petitioner made this application under sec. 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (thereinafter referred to as the Act) for rectification of the Register alleging that the registration of the opponents trade mark was invalid. A notice was ordered to be issued to the opponent and the Registrar of Trade Marks Bombay. The opponent appeared and filed its written statement inter alia contending that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE court framed the preliminary issue on December 6 1971 as under :-WHETHER this court has jurisdiction to hear this petition. SEE. 56 of the Act is in Chapter VII-headed rectification and correction of the register. Sec. 56 (1) provides that on application being made in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved the tribunal may make such order as it may think fit for canceling or varying the registration of a trade mark on the ground of any contravention or failure to observe a condition entered in the register in relation thereto. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (2) provides that any person aggrieved by the absence or omission from the register of any entry or by any entry made in the register without sufficient cause or by any entry wrongly remaining on the register or by any error or defect in any entry in the register may apply in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar and the tribunal may make such order for making expunging or varying the entry as it may think fit. The present application of the petitioner is under sec. 56 for canceling the entry on the ground that the registration of the trade mark in favour of the opponent is invalid. Such an application is to be made to the High Court. High Court is defined in sec. 2 (h) to mean the High Court having jurisdiction under sec. 3. The relevant portion of sec. 3 provides as under :- ( 3 ) THE High Court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be the High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Trade Marks Registry referred to in each of the following cases is situate namely:- (A) in relation to a trade mark on the Register of Trade Marks at the commencement of this Act the office of the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business in India of the proprietor of the trade mark as entered in the register at such commencement is situate:- (B) in relation to a trade mark for which an application for registration is pending at or is made on or after the commencement of this Act the office of the Trade Mark Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business in India of the applicant as disclosed in his application is situate :- ( 4 ) MR. S. M. Shah for the opponent urged that the present case is governed by sec. 3 (a ). The opponents trade mark was registered on September 5 1957 The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 came into force on November 25 1959 Therefore the opponents trade mark was on the register of trade marks at the commencement of the Act. There is some correction in respect of the registered trade mark on June 26 1962 But that is not relevant for the purpose of the present discussion. There is some correction in respect of the registered trade mark on June 26 1962 But that is not relevant for the purpose of the present discussion. It Therefore appears that the opponent s trade mark was on the register of trade marks at the commencement of the 1958 Act. And the present application is made under sec. 56 of the Act for expunging the entry registering the opponents trade mark. The question is whether this petition can be entertained by this High Court. ( 5 ) THE High Court which will have jurisdiction will be one within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Trade Marks Registry referred to in clause (a) is situate. The principal place of business in India of the proprietor of the trade mark will govern the jurisdiction of the Trade Marks Registry which in turn would govern the jurisdiction of the High Court. In order to find out whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application it will have to be found out where the principal place of business of the opponent the proprietor of the registered trade mark is situate and that place is within the territorial jurisdiction of which Trade Marks Registry. After the Trade Marks Registry is thus located the next step is to find out as to within the appellate jurisdiction of which High Court such office of the Trade Marks Registry is situate. Jurisdiction is not conferred on all High Courts to entertain petitions under sec. 56 of the Act. Only those High Courts will have jurisdiction within whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Trade Marks Registry is situate and within whose territorial jurisdiction the principal place of business of the proprietor of the registered trade mark is situate. In order therefore to find out which High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under sec. 56 the court will have to travel three steps. First to ascertain the principal place of business in India of the proprietor of the registered trade mark as entered in the Register at the commencement of the Act. After determining this principal place of business the court must find out as to within the territorial jurisdiction of which Trade Marks Registry this principal place of business is situate. First to ascertain the principal place of business in India of the proprietor of the registered trade mark as entered in the Register at the commencement of the Act. After determining this principal place of business the court must find out as to within the territorial jurisdiction of which Trade Marks Registry this principal place of business is situate. After thus ascertaining the appropriate Trade Marks Registry the next step is to find out as to within the appellate jurisdiction of which High Court such office of the Trade Marks Registry is situate. That High Court alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under sec. 56 of the Act. ( 6 ) MR. D. D. Vyas attempted to urge that as the expression appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is used in sec. 3 it has only relation to the provisions for appeals made in sec. 109 of the Act meaning thereby that the jurisdiction conferred on various High Courts under sec. 3 will begin relation to the appellate jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court against certain orders of the Registrar. Sec. 109 provides for appeals against certain orders of the Registrar. Sec 109 (2) provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court within the prescribed period from any order or decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder. Sec. 109 provides for appeals against the orders of the Registrar to the High Court The question whether which High Court will have jurisdiction cannot be decided by reference to sec. 109. The appeal will lie to that High Court which will have jurisdiction under sec. 3. The jurisdiction of the High Court is dealt with in sec. 3 and not in sec. 109. Therefore sec. 109 will not assist in determining which High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the orders of the Registrar. The expression appellate jurisdiction in sec. 3 is used in contradistinction to the original jurisdiction which certain High Courts enjoy. The territorial limits of the original jurisdiction is also prescribed. The territorial limits of the original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court extends over the Greater Bombay only while its appellate jurisdiction extends over the whole of Maharashtra State. It is in this context that the word appellate jurisdiction is used in sec. 3. The territorial limits of the original jurisdiction is also prescribed. The territorial limits of the original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court extends over the Greater Bombay only while its appellate jurisdiction extends over the whole of Maharashtra State. It is in this context that the word appellate jurisdiction is used in sec. 3. Where a High Court is set up for a State its appellate jurisdiction is generally co-extensive with the geographical limits of the State. It is in relation to this territory over which the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court extends which has been spelt out by using the expression appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and not in relation to the power to entertain appeals conferred by sec. 109. The expression appellate jurisdiction in sec. 3 refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and not to the power to entertain appeals and is used in contradistinction to the territory over be which the original jurisdiction of a High Court extends. ( 7 ) THE language of sec. 3 (a) leaves no room for doubt. The scheme of the Act is clear. The Government by a notification has set up the Trade Marks Registry at Bombay and its jurisdiction extends over the States of Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra and the Union Territories of Dadra Nagar Haveli Goa Diu and Daman. The Bombay office is the Head Office of the Trade Marks Registry. By the same notification Government has also set up branch offices of the Trade Marks Registry at Calcutta Delhi and Madras and has fixed the territorial jurisdiction of each of such branches. The scheme that emerges from sec. 3 is that that High Court in whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Trade Marks Registry is situate and within the territorial limits of such office the principal place of business of the proprietor of the registered trade mark is situate will have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings in respect of such trade marks. The view that I am taking gets support from two decisions one of Allahabad and another of Andhra Pradesh. In Betti Kunwar v. Chuni Lal A. I. R. 1965 All. 256 the same view is taken. Similar view was also taken in Habeeb Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks A. I. R. 1966 A. P. 102. The view that I am taking gets support from two decisions one of Allahabad and another of Andhra Pradesh. In Betti Kunwar v. Chuni Lal A. I. R. 1965 All. 256 the same view is taken. Similar view was also taken in Habeeb Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks A. I. R. 1966 A. P. 102. ( 8 ) EXAMINING the facts of this case simultaneously keeping in view the interpretation put on sec. 3 it is clear that this High Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The principal place of business of the opponent who is the proprietor of the registered trade mark infringement of which is complained of at the hands of the present petitioner and in respect of which the present proceeding is commenced by the petitioner is situated at Morvi District Rajkot in this State. The Gujarat State is within the territorial jurisdiction of the office of the Trade Marks Registry at Bombay and that office of the Trade Marks Registry at Bombay is situated within the appellate jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Therefore the Bombay High Court alone will have jurisdiction to entertain this petition and this High Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain it. The preliminary issue will have to be answered in favour of the opponent ( 9 ) IN accordance with the finding on the preliminary issue this petition is returned to the petitioner for presenting it to the proper court. The cost of this hearing to abide by the final outcome of the petition. .