Judgment :- A. Ramamurthi, J. The applicants/plaintiffs filed the application under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to grant leave to sue the respondent in this Court. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The applicants filed a suit against the respondent for perpetual order and injunction restraining the respondent and their men from infringing the first applicant's registered trade mark FESOVIT by manufacturing, selling, distributing or offering tablets, pharmaceutical preparations bearing the trade mark FEVORIT or any mark similar to the trade mark of the applicant and also from passing off and enabling others to pass off the respondent's goods as that of the applicants. The first applicant is a Company incorporated in United Kingdom and is a leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. It has registered several trade marks in India and all over the World. The second applicant is the Associate Company of the first applicant. The first applicant is the proprietor of trade mark FESOVIT registered in clause 5 in respect of pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations and substances. The registration is valid upto 27.7.2006. The first applicant has entered into an User Agreement dated 6.3.1985 with the second applicant authorising the later to use the trade mark of the applicant in India. The second applicant came to know in July, 2000 that the respondent is manufacturing and selling tablets bearing the trade mark FESOVIT. Both the drugs are available across the counter. The tablets of both companies would be sold in the same shops to the same class of purchasers which would lead to confusion and deception among the trade and public. The act of infringement and passing off have been committed by the respondent at Chennai since the tablets are sold at Chennai and, as such, this Court has got jurisdiction. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and contended that the present application is not maintainable. The applicant can seek for leave provided substantial part of the cause of action has arisen (within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the instant case, there should be commercial sale of goods with the impugned trade mark should have been sold by the stockist or distributors or dealers of the respondent so as to infer, that this Court has jurisdiction. The applicants have to establish the same. In the instant case, there should be commercial sale of goods with the impugned trade mark should have been sold by the stockist or distributors or dealers of the respondent so as to infer, that this Court has jurisdiction. The applicants have to establish the same. It is not the claim of the applicant in the plaint that such a commercial sale is going on in the City of Chennai. The cause of action paragraph in the plaint also did not disclose the same. The knowledge of the applicants cannot be a ground for grant of leave and the conduct of the applicants amounts to abuse of the forum. Further, the applicants trade mark and the respondent's trade mark are not deceptively similar and pointed out various reasons in para 4 of the counter. The respondent also will furnish details regarding the pending registered trade marks with the prefix FES and suffix VIT from the Office of Trade Mark Registry from 1940 till date. The cause of action as stated in the plaint does not reveal part or substantial part and, as such, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 5. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the applicants have made out a case to grant leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent to institute a suit against the respondent? (2) To what relief? 6. Points: The applicants/plaintiffs filed the application under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to grant leave to sue the respondent on the ground that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant is manufacturing and selling the tablet FESOVIT. In July 2000, the second applicant came to know that the respondent is manufacturing and selling tablets bearing the identical trade mark and both drugs are available across the counter. In short, it is stated that the act of infringement or passing off has been committed by the respondent at Chennai since their tablets are sold at Chennai. In fact, some of the cash bills have been produced by the applicant to show that the product of the respondent is sold at Chennai. The plaint averments and the cause of action had to be looked into to find out whether leave can be granted. 7. In fact, some of the cash bills have been produced by the applicant to show that the product of the respondent is sold at Chennai. The plaint averments and the cause of action had to be looked into to find out whether leave can be granted. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent stated that only if the goods have been sold through a stockist or distributor or dealer of the respondent, then alone it can be construed as a commercial sale on the part of the respondent, so as to give jurisdiction to the court. Nowhere in the plaint it is stated that such a commercial sale is carried on in the City of Madras by the respondent. Perusal of the cause of action paragraph also indicates that no such averment is there to show that the respondent had authorised the stockist or distributor or dealer in the City of Chennai. Hence, it is stated that the sale of the product by any other unauthorised person would not confer any jurisdiction in this court. I am of the view that there is some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on Firm Bhagwan Das Ramji Lal and another v. Watkins Mayor & Co., 1947 AIR(Lahore) 289, wherein it was stated that a Court in District where goods are sent for sale in commercial quantity has jurisdiction and actual sale is not necessary. There is no dispute about this proposition, but so far as the case on hand is concerned, no record has been filed to show that any commercial quantity has been sent for purposes of sale by the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance upon another decision of this Court reported in Amrutanjan Limited v. Ashwin Fine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, 1991 AIR(Madras) 277, wherein it was observed that the defendants are manufacturing and selling their product in Madhya Pradesh by camouflaging registered trade mark of plaintiff's. The registration of plaintiff's trade mark at Madras and their manufacturing, marketing and selling their product throughout country later than the other application (No.285062) filed on 29.12.1972 is intriguing. There could no try is not disputed by defendants. There could no try is not disputed by defendants. As the plaintiff's trade mark was registered at Madras, it was taken as a cause of action, but, in the present case, it is not so and, hence, these decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions reported in Roche & Co. v. G. Manners & Co., M.M.P. Ltd. v. O.P. Corporation, 1975 AIR(Madras) 74 and Manyam & Co., Bangalore v. Balasubramania Nadar, 1967 AIR(Madras) 186 and these decisions have no application to the case on hand since they relate to the merits of the case. The respondent also relied on Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd., Simla v. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited, AIR 1981 P&H 117 , wherein it was held that only if it is the defendant who is proved to have directly made sale of goods under the impugned trade mark, within that jurisdiction, not to an individual consumer but to a distributor, wholesaler or retailer and that such a sale is on a commercial scale, jurisdiction can be invoked. This decision is applicable to the case on hand. He also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Amrutanjan Limited v. Mehta Unani Pharmacy Company, wherein it was observed that the defendants sold their pain balm only in the Kerala State, the alleged sale in the city of Madras could not be regarded as real sale and since there was no real sale of the product under the trade mark AMRUTMANTHAN within its territorial jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand. Considering the decisions aforesaid and the principles laid therein, I am of the view that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and, hence, the points are answered accordingly. 11. For the reasons stated above, the application fails and is dismissed.