Judgment :- A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Applicant filed the application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to transfer O.S.128 of 1998 pending on the file of District Court, Coimbatore for trial along with O.P. 682 of 1998 pending on the file of this Court. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The applicant is the proprietor of a new and novel design in respect of Table Top Wetgrinders manufactured and sold under the trade name 'Ultra' Table Top Wetgrinder. It was originally registered under the Indian Designs Act, 1911 in the name of Elgi Finance Limited and they became the sole proprietor of the registered design under Registration Nos. 163445 and 163446 dated 25.7.1991. They widely published their registered design in dailies and magazines and also issued caution notices from time to time warning the public against any unlawful adoption or imitation of their registered designs. M/s. Elgi Finance Limited assigned its registered design and all rights flowing thereunder to and in favour of the applicant. The applicant was also made to the Controller of Patent and Designs notifying the assignment whereafter the applicant was duly recognized and registered as the owner and the registered proprietor of the same design. In exercise of the right, the applicant had authorised and permitted the Public Limited Company M/s. Elgi Ultra Industries Limited to use and exploit the registered design. The licensee has since been marketing the proto type table top wetgrinder with the special and peculiar design. During the third week of June 98, the applicant came to know about the surreptitious introduction of similar grinders in the market which were slavish imitation and complete adoption of the applicant's registered design of Ultra. On an enquiry, the applicant learnt that the impugned grinders are manufactured by the respondent and sold in the name of 'Klase Trendy' with the false representation that the respondent is also a dealer in the products manufactured by M/s. Elgi Ultra Industries Limited. The licensee instituted a suit in O.S. No. 128 of 1998 in the District Court of Coimbatore, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from adopting or using or exploiting the design of the applicant's table top wet grinder and for a further permanent injunction restraining them from passing off or selling their table top wetgrinders with the existing design. The suit is still pending. The applicant filed O.P. 682 of 1998 before this Court under Section 51-A of the Designs Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for cancellation of registration of the respondent's design in respect of the table top wetgrinder. The applicant also filed an interim application but the same was dismissed by this Court on 5.1.1999 and he had preferred O.S.A. as against that Order. The parties involved in both the matters are one and the same and the evidence and other matters are similar and identical and, hence, it is just and necessary that the suit from the District Court can be transferred to the file of this Court by exercising extraordinary Original jurisdiction under Clause 13 of the Letters of Patent Rules. Hence, this petition. 3. The respondent filed a counter and denied the various allegations. The respondent company has been manufacturing, selling and advertising its products since December, 1997. The applicant slept over the matter for more than seven months. They had acquiesced in the manufacture and sale of distinctive table top wetgrinder by any company. The reliefs prayed for in the suit O.S.128/98 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore relates to permanent injunction. The relief claimed on O.P. 682/98 is one to cancel the respondent's design with registration Nos. in respect of the table top wetgrinder. The applicant filed the suit before the District Court in June'98 and no interim order was granted. Only later, the applicant filed original petition before this Court in October 98 after the lapse of four months. The cause of action for both the cases is different. The respondent does not have any distributor or sole selling agent for the City of Coimbatore. There is no commercial sale also in that place. The suit itself is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction has to be tried by the learned District Judge. The application lacks in bona fide and there is no valid and sufficient cause to transfer the suit from that Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is valid and sufficient case to transfer O.S.128/98 from the file of District Court, Coimbatore to the file of this Court for trial along with O.P. No. 682/98? 6. 4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is valid and sufficient case to transfer O.S.128/98 from the file of District Court, Coimbatore to the file of this Court for trial along with O.P. No. 682/98? 6. Point : It is admitted that the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.128/98 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent and their men from using the existing design of the table top wetgrinder and also for permanent injunction restraining them from passing off, selling their table top wetgrinder with the existing design. After the period of four months, the same applicant filed original petition before this Court under Section 51-A of the Designs Act to cancel the respondent's design with registration Nos. 175034 and 175035 in respect of the table top wetgrinder. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that issues involved, the parties to the lis, the evidence to be let in and the rights claimed by the parties are identical and, as such, it is just and necessary, by invoking the extraordinary original jurisdiction under clause 13 of the Letters of Patent, the suit can be transferred to this Court for trial. 7. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the applicant or the respondent have got right relating to the table top wetgrinder. The applicant is said to be manufacturing the table top wetgrinder since 1991 and the respondent is manufacturing and selling the product since December, 1997 that the benefit of the Registration will go only to the individual partners and not to the firm, and the 'trademark' and the property belonging to the individual partners were not brought into the hotchpot of the assets of the firm. It is also contended that since they have not brought the said asset as part of the asset of the firm, without assignment or transmission the surviving partners are not entitled to operate the names of the registered proprietors and in their place the first respondent and others cannot be substituted as subsequent proprietors. A registered trademark, even if it is not used, is obviously a species of property as the stat It is necessary to state that the reliefs claimed in both the cases are completely different. A registered trademark, even if it is not used, is obviously a species of property as the stat It is necessary to state that the reliefs claimed in both the cases are completely different. No doubt, the parties are one and the same but the relief claimed in the suit relates to permanent injunction whereas the relief claimed in O.P. 628/98 is for cancelling the respondent's design under Section 51-A of the Designs Act. It cannot be said that the evidence to be adduced will be similar for both the cases. If really there is no jurisdiction for the District Court at Coimbatore to carry on with the case, it is always open to the applicant to withdraw the same and file a fresh suit before this Court. It is also not in dispute that the two applications filed by the applicant in O.P. 682/98 were already dismissed and aggrieved against this, the applicant has preferred appeal and the same is pending. Only thereafter, the applicant has come forward with this application to withdraw the suit from the file of the District Court. Considering the reliefs claimed in the suit and in the original petition, I am of the view, it is not necessary to transfer the suit to the file of this Court. The scope of the evidence will be limited so far as the original petition is concerned and, hence, I am of the view that there is no valid and sufficient case to transfer the suit. 8. For the reasons stated above, the application fails and is dismissed.