Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.This miscellaneous petition has been registered in this Court in pursuance of the order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 69 of 1999, whereby the suit filed before the said Court, has been transferred to this Court in view of Section 64 read with proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. 3.Learned Counsel for both the parties do not dispute that the plaintiff Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Limited filed a civil suit for damages and permanent injunction in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 01.09.1999, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 486/1996. The said suit was transferred for disposal to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 8 Jaipur City, Jaipur. Both the parties do not dispute that the pleadings, controversy and the prayer made in the said suit relate to the Patents Act, 1970 as well as the Designs Act. 4.As per provisions of Patents Act, the suit for injunction is required to be filed in the Court of District Judge, but as and when defendant files counter claim for revocation of the Patent, then the said suit as well as counter claim are to be transferred to the High Court for decision. However, suit for injunction in respect of Design Act is to be instituted before the Court of District Judge. Learned Counsel for the defendant moved an application in the lower Court to transfer the suit to this Court in view of its counter claim for revocation of the Patent and the Lower Court passed the impugned order dated 29.07.2000 transferring the said suit to this Court. 5.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Learned Counsel for the defendant moved an application in the lower Court to transfer the suit to this Court in view of its counter claim for revocation of the Patent and the Lower Court passed the impugned order dated 29.07.2000 transferring the said suit to this Court. 5.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Kasliwal, contended that so far as the controversy relating to Designs Act is concerned, the same can only be tried by the Court of District Judge and not by this Court and the learned lower Court committed an illegality in transferring the entire suit itself including the controversy relating to the Design Act to this Court, therefore, either the Issue relating to controversy relating to Designs Act may be framed and remitted to the lower Court for its decisions or the entire suit itself which has been transferred may be sent back to the lower Court for its decisions on the issue relating to the Designs Act and to transfer the matter thereafter to this Court for deciding the controversy relating to the Patents Act. 6.Learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. Balwada, contended that controversy relating to the Patents Act in the suit can only be tried by this Court, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 29.07.2000 and this Court can try the entire suit itself . He further contended that one Mr. Charanjit Kumar Sharma, trading as M/s. L & D Electronics Industries has moved separate and independent application directly in this Court i.e. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 405 of 1999 under Section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 for the cancellation of the registered design No. 162266 dated 29.06.1990 and the said application can only be decided by the High Court, therefore, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice, to decide the said application as well as the entire suit by this Court itself . 7.Position of law is not disputed by both the parties that so far as the suit for injunction in respect of controversy relating to the Designs Act is concerned, the same is to be tried only by the Court of District Judge and not by this Court and so far as the cancellation of the registered design number is concerned, the same has to be decided by this Court, if counter claim is filed by the defendants in the suit itself . 8.An application under Section 51-A of the Designs Act has been filed directly in this Court by one Charanjit Kumar and not by defendant industry and it has been registered separately in this Court as S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 405 of 1999, which is still pending before this Court and the same will be decided in accordance with the provisions of law. However, so far as, the present suit is concerned, I find that the suit for injunction was not exclusively for violation of provisions of Patent Act, but mixed controversy relating to violation of provisions of Patents Act and Designs Act was involved and suit for injunction relating to Designs Act could only be tried by District Judge only and as such the lower Court committed an illegality in transferring the entire suit itself . It was a duty of the lower Court to frame necessary issue in respect of controversy relating to the Designs Act and to take evidence thereon and to decide the same and only thereafter it could have transferred the matter to this Court for decision on the issue relating to the Patents Act. 9.In these circumstances, I find that the Lower Court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 29.07.2000 transferring the entire suit itself to this Court for decision. I therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2000 and dismiss the application of the defendant dated 21.07.2000 and remit back the original Civil Suit No. 486 of 1999 to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur with the direction to proceed with the suit in accordance with the provisions of law. Parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 01.03.2006. It is expected from the Lower Court to expedite the suit keeping in view that the suit was filed in the year 1999. 10.In view of above, the Miscellaneous Petition No. 01/2001 stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above. Consequently, the application dated 09.09.20002 filed by plaintiff in this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1/2001 does not survive and the same is also disposed of . The registry is directed to send back the record of the Lower Court immediately. No order as to costs.