V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is plaintiff in OS No. 135 of 2003. He instituted the said suit on the file of the Court of senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli alleging that he is carrying on business in manufacturing and selling soft drinks using the trade name on the bottle "gemini" soft drinks and "siva" soft drinks. He alleged that first defendant, first respondent herein, who is a partner of the registered firm in the name and style of gemini Drinks Company at Kondapaka, near Anakapalli and therefore he claimed absolute right of the trade mark and sought to restrain the defendants from using the label "gemini". Along with the suit the petitioner filed IA No. 652 of 2003, The trial Court ordered notice. After receiving the notice, the defendants filed IA No. 35 of 2004 raising a preliminary objection as to the competency and jurisdiction of the court of Senior Civil Judge, to entertain a suit in relation to a trademark. The said application being LA No. 35 of 2004 was filed under Order XIV Rule 1 of Code of civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court heard both the matters and by common order dated 8-4-2004 came to the conclusion that having regard to Section 134 of the Trade marks Act, 1999 (for short, the Act), court of Senior Civil Judge has no jurisdiction and accordingly allowed IA No. 35 of 2004 while directing the return of the plaint along with LA No. 652 of 2003. In this appeal, the order of the learned Senior civil Judge, Anakapalli, is assailed. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant relies on Section 27 (2) of the Act in support of the contention that in relation to an un-registered trade mark, the right of a person against passing off goods or services is not divested and therefore to protect such right it is open to the person to avail Section IX of CPC and file suit before the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived. A plain reading of Sections 27 and 134 of the Act would belie any such contention. These two provisions read as under. 27. (1) No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived. A plain reading of Sections 27 and 134 of the Act would belie any such contention. These two provisions read as under. 27. (1) No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof. 134. (1) No suit (a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or (b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or (c) for passing off arising out of te use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try to the suit (2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a "district Court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a district Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. explanation:for the purposes of subsection (2), "person" includes the registered proprietor and the registered user. ( 3 ) AS per Section 134, any suit for infringement of registered trade mark or relating to any right in a registered trade mark, or for passing off arising out of the use of any trade mark by the defendant shall lie only in a District Court, that is, the district Court having jurisdiction irrespective of pecuniary considerations involved in the suit A suit for passing off arising out of defendant s use of trade mark whether or not such trade mark is registered or not, would lie only in District Court. The right of a person to protect his unregistered trade mark is guaranteed under Section 27 (2) of the Act. The right of a person to protect his unregistered trade mark is guaranteed under Section 27 (2) of the Act. But, such right has to be vindicated seeking appropriate redressal only in a district Court. Indeed, sub-section (2) of section 27 is by way of exception to subsection (1) of Section 27 which mandates that no proceeding to prevent or recover damages would lie in respect of unregistered trade mark. A suit for damages or injunction in relation to an unregistered trade mark would lie, but having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 27, a suit for passing off arising out of defendant s use of unregistered trade mark would certainly lie. Even in such a case, proper forum of such person claiming ownership by unregistered firm is District Court. This court does not find any infirmity or error in the view taken by the learned Senior Civil judge, Anakapalli. It shall be open to the petitioner plaintiff to file suit before District court as alleged cause of action he alleges is continuing cause of action. ( 4 ) THE CMA with the above observations is dismissed. No costs.