Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. Petitioner is a proprietary concern and is engaged in the distribution of home appliance including mixer grinder and accessories. The relief prayed for in the original petition is for issue of a direction to the second respondent - the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to cancel Ext. P6 series which are registration of designs issued by them in favour of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner was originally attending to the distribution work of M/s Cookwell Domestic Appliances and M/s G & G Agencies. It seems that petitioner had severed connections with them and had started distribution of articles manufactured by third parties. On the plea that petitioner was engaging in the distribution of spurious articles overlooking the patent registration, the said firms had filed a suit before the District Judge, Kozhikode under the Designs Act, 1911 as O.S. No. 7 of 2001. An interim injunction was obtained by them as well. 3. The second respondent had issued design registration in their favour and this was the enabling circumstance for them to obtain an order from the Munsiff injuncting the petitioner from the activities. Petitioner submits that such registration given to the said respondents, was overlooking the circumstance that earlier to such registration, other similar products were in the market and also patents issued to others are in existence. In support of the petitioner's contentions, Ext. P5 has been produced which according to him shows that identical products have been given registration of designs, and therefore Ext. P6 is not legally sustainable. A fine defence. A court has to allow defence of invalidity to be raised in proceedings where they are relevant. But in this case, the existence of a civil case creates some difficulty for the petitioner. 4. I had heard the respondents as well. In fact what is urged is disputed question of facts, which deserves to be enquired into. In the civil proceedings, petitioner has entered appearance. In view of the statutory prescriptions and on such disputes being urged, perhaps the matter will have to be referred to the High Court. Sec. 51 A of the Designs Act, 1911 dealt with the above positions and the High Court could have entertained the application in the matter of cancellation of registration of designs. 5. The above Act has been replaced by the Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000). Sec. 51 A of the Designs Act, 1911 dealt with the above positions and the High Court could have entertained the application in the matter of cancellation of registration of designs. 5. The above Act has been replaced by the Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000). Sec. 22(4) of the said Act inter alia provides that where any ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Sec. 19 has been availed of as a ground of defence, the suit or such other proceedings shall be transferred by the court to the High Court for decision. Petitioner has emboldened himself to file the original petition in the aforesaid circumstances, he submits. 6. In so far as the suit has already been filed and it is pending, it will be premature for the petitioner to approach the High Court especially by a writ petition, since the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Code is to be duly underwent. So viewed, I have no other recourse than to dismiss this Original Petition, but reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the District Court, Kozhikode and take up defence as is necessarily advised or required. The difficulties of the petitioner are understandable and it will be permissible for him to move the court for an expeditious hearing. The court is to enquire into the matter and pass orders which are envisaged under the Designs Act giving possible accommodation and precedence, in view of the interlocutory orders in force. There will be no order as to costs.