ORDER Kumar, J This writ petition is filed by the second defendant in OS 27080/2007 challenging the order passed on an interlocutory application under Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2000 wherein the trial court has refused to transfer the suit to the High Court. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff M/s Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s Vijay steel Tubes and Fittings Private Limited, for a declaration that the defendants or their men are not entitled to manufacture, sale, use or offer for sale, the PVC Pipes and fittings produced with the list to the plaint, manufactured by the defendants, which infrings the rights, benefits and privileges grnted under the Design Registration No. 203491 and Design Registration No. 203492 by the Patent Office of the Government of India in favour o fth eplaintiff and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from applying, copying, dealing with or selling or from doing such other act, resulting into taking the features and element of the plaintiff’s design, a registered porduct which infringes the intellectural property rights of th plaintiff and for a direction to the defendant to render in detail accounts showing the entire quantum of infrigning products manufactured and sold by the defendant through out and for a direction to hand over the impugned product pipes and for consequential reliefs. 4. After service of summons, second defendant filed a detailed written statement travesing all the allegations in the plaint. In addition to contesting the claim of the plaintiff on merits, in para. 17 of the written statement, they set-out in detail the facts which accoridng to them clearly establish that the designs of te plaintiff are not registerable under the act and are liable to be cancelled on the grounds mentioned therin. In other words, apart from denying the allegations of infringement and passing off of their product as plaintiff’s products, they urged the grounds on thwich the registration of the plaintiff’s design ought to be cancelled under section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. It is thereafter, they filed an application under Section 22(4) of the Act requesting the City Civil Corut to transfer the suit to the High Court for decision. It is thereafter, they filed an application under Section 22(4) of the Act requesting the City Civil Corut to transfer the suit to the High Court for decision. The said application was opposed by teh plaintiffs on the ground that not only they are enforcing the statutory remedy under Section 22(2) of the Act, but also they are enforrcing their common law right of passing off and therefore Section 22(4) is not attracted to such a right. 5. After hearing both the After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff’s suit is not under Section 22(2) of the Act seeking for damages for violation of his copy right design, but the plaintiff’s relief is for declaration that the defendants or their men are not entitled to manufacture, sell their products in infringement of the rights of suit design registration number; Counsequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men from applying, copying, dealing with or selling etc., of the said suit design and thirdly to direct the defendants to deal with accounts showing the entire quantum of damages pertaining to the suit design and lastly to direct the defendants to hand over the impugned products. He was of the view that the plaintiff’s reliefs claimed is higher than what is provided under Section 22 (2) of the said Act. Section 22 (2) only pertains to damages for the violation, to the maximum extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. But, in this case, plaintiff is not at all seeking any relief under Section 22 (2) ie., damages above. Therefore, only if the defence of revocation of the design is taken in a suit or proceeding for relief under sub-section (2) of Section 22(4), Section 22(4) is attracted and therefore he dismissed the said application. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial judge, second defendant has preferred this writ petition. 7. Sri G Shivdas, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant/petitioner herein submitted that the language employed in subsection (3) and (4) of Section 22 is very clear. It is not confined only to a proceeding under Section 22. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial judge, second defendant has preferred this writ petition. 7. Sri G Shivdas, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant/petitioner herein submitted that the language employed in subsection (3) and (4) of Section 22 is very clear. It is not confined only to a proceeding under Section 22. The defendant has a right to urge grounds on which the registration of a design may be cancelled, as stipulated such a defence is available to a defendant both under Section 19, in a suit filed under Section 22 of the Act as well as a suit filed for passing off under common law. In either of the suits which is filed in the City Civil Court of Bangalore, if such a defence is taken, the Civil Court has no option except to transfer such a suit to the High Court for decision. Learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the words “in any suit” or “any other proceeding” found in Sub-Section (3) and (4) of the Act and has read both those phrases to include a proceeding under Section 22(2) of the Act. 8. Per contra, Sri Srivatsa, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent contended the words “in any suit” or “any other proceeding” referred to in Sub-section (3) & (4) necessarily applies only to a proceeding under Section 22(2). They cannot be read disjunctively. It is to be read conjunctively and if so read, the order passed by the trial Court is legal and valid and do not call for interference. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 22 which reads as under: Section 22: Piracy of registered design”. (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 22 which reads as under: Section 22: Piracy of registered design”. (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person. (a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applkied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious limitation thereof, except with the license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or (b) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the registered proprietor, nay article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious limitation thereof; or (c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious limitation thereof has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, to pubolish or expose or cause to be published or exposed fro sale that article. (2) If any person acts in contrafvention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention- (a) to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees recoverable as a contract debt, or (b) if the properietor elects to bring a suit for the recovery of damages for any such contravention, and for an injunction against the repetition thereof, to pay such damages as may be awared and to be restrained by injunciton accordingly; Provided that the total sum recoverable in respect of any one design under clause (a) shall not exceed fifty thousand rupees; Provided further that no suit or any other proceeding for relief under this sub-section shall be instituted in any Court below the Court of district Judge. (3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defence. (3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defence. (4) Nowithstanding anything contained in the second proviso to sub-section (2) , where any ground on which the registration of a design may be canelled under Section 19 has been availed of as a ground of defence and sub-section (3) in any suit or other proceeding for relief under sub0-section (2), the suit or such other proceding shall be transferred by the Court, in whic the suit or such other proceeding is pending tothe High Court fpr decision. (5) When the Court makes a decree in a sit under sub-section (2), it shall send a copy of the decree to the Controller, who hsall cause an entry thereof to be made in the register of designs. 10. The Act provides for registration. Once a design is registered, the proprietor of the design shall have a copyright in the design during ten years from the date of registration and if he so chooses, to get it extended for another five years. During the existnece of copyright in any design, it is nto lawful or any petrson to make use of he said copringt as a design without a licence or written consent of the registered proprietor, Section 22 of the act sets-out what a piracy of the registered design is alnd what are lawful acts with reference to a registered copy right design and when the user becomes uhnlawful. It sets out that tofr the purpose of sale, application, import, publishing and exposing for sale of thir article, the registered design should not be made use of, without license or written consent of the registered proprietor, and it would amount to ta contravention of the rights conferred under the Act. 11. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Acts provides for the liabilities on account of such contravention, and the remedies and reliefs to which the registered porprietor of the design is entitled to. The remedies provided in the sub-section (2) of Section 22 is not exhaustive. If any person acts in contravention of sub-secton (1) of Section 22, a registered proprietor of a design in the event of contravention would be entitled to a sum not exceeding Rs. The remedies provided in the sub-section (2) of Section 22 is not exhaustive. If any person acts in contravention of sub-secton (1) of Section 22, a registered proprietor of a design in the event of contravention would be entitled to a sum not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- from such person who infringes the registered design of the registered proprietor. Clause (b) of Sub-section. (2) also provides for a suit for the recovery of damages for such contravention, as well as a suit for injuncton against the repetition of such contravention. The second proviso to sub-section (2) Section 22 provides the forum where the “Suit” or “Any other proceeding” for relief under the said sub-section is to be instituted. It shall not be instituted in any court below the Court of District Judge. 12. Sub-section (3) of Section provides, “in any suit” or “Any other proceeding” for relief under sub-section (2) of Section 22, every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19, shall be availabe as a ground of defence. In other words, the defendant in a suit brought by the registered proprietor of a design complaining of infringement, apart from contesting the claim on the ground that there is no infringment as alleged, it is also open to him to take up defences which are set -out in Section 19 of the Act which are good grounds for cancellation of registration of a design. 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 only provides for statutory remedies. They are not exhaustive. Apart from those statutory remedies, the registered proprietor of a design would be entitled to remedies that are available under connon law. In additon to the reliefs set-out in Sub-section (2) of Section 22 a registered proprietor of a design would be entitled to claim rendition of accounts or profits in a suit for infringement. He also would be entitled to the relief of delivering of the infringing material and for destuction of such material. The Act do not exclude the enforcement of such remedies. The wordings of the section are very clear. “In any suit” or “Any other proceeding” for the relief under sub-section (2) do not refer only to the reliefs to be granted under sub-section (2) of Section 22 as contended by the learned counsel. The Act do not exclude the enforcement of such remedies. The wordings of the section are very clear. “In any suit” or “Any other proceeding” for the relief under sub-section (2) do not refer only to the reliefs to be granted under sub-section (2) of Section 22 as contended by the learned counsel. A careful reading of Sub Section (2) of Section 22, shows that the section is dealing with the liabilities, a person would ineur if he infrienges the copy right in a registered design, Sub-section 2(a) is not referring to any remedy. Infact, both the words compensation or damages is conspicuouslyu missing in the ssaid provision. The phrase used is “Contract debt”. It quantifies it at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) being the higher limit. The first proviso to the said provision makes it clear that the total sum recoverable in respect of any one design under clause (a) shall not exceed Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Therefore, the maximum amount recoverable for contravention of the registered design is statutorily fixed. If the contravention periosts, the registered proprietor has been given the option to bring a suit for the recovery of damages or for injunction against repetition thereof or both. Thereofre, the statute provides two remedies to a registered proprietor. There are the legal proceedings provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 22. “Any other proceeding” for the relief under Sub-section (2) referred to in sub-section necessarily refers to the aforesaid two types of remedies provided under the said sub-section. Taht is the statutory remedies. No other remedy is provided under the statute for such contraventions. Similarly, “In any suit”, the opening words of sub-section (3) do not refer to the suit referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. The words “Any suit” referred to thereto refer to proceedings other than under sub-clause (b0 which also includes as suit. “Any suit” referred to a suit other than the suit instituted under the act to enforece the statutory remedies provided under the Act. It is a suit to enforce the common law remedies. Therefore, the words “In any suit” or “Any other proceeding” for relief under sub-section (2) has to be read disjunctiovely and not conjunctively otherwise it leads to absurdity. When the legislature has consciously used the aforesaid two different phrases, they cannot be read to mean one and the same. It is a suit to enforce the common law remedies. Therefore, the words “In any suit” or “Any other proceeding” for relief under sub-section (2) has to be read disjunctiovely and not conjunctively otherwise it leads to absurdity. When the legislature has consciously used the aforesaid two different phrases, they cannot be read to mean one and the same. Each phrase has to be given its due weight and meaning. Between the two phrases, all the remedies to which a registered proprietor would be entitled to is covered. It includes both the statutory remedies as contained in Seciton 22(2) of the Act aswell as the commmon law remedies. The foundation of such a claim is the registration of a design. 14. Section 19 of the act provides for cancellation of registration. It sets out five grounds on which any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of registration of a design at any time after the registration of the design to the Controller. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 provides for an appeal to the High Court against any order of the Controlller. When such a petiton under sub-section (2) of Section 19 is filed before the Controller, he has been given the direcetion to decide the pettion on merit s or be may refer such petiton to the High Court. On such reference, High Court shall decide the petition so referred. Though the civil court has been vested with the power and jurisdiction to decide the question of infringement, payment of damages and other reliefs, it has not been vested with the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a design made under the Act. The said power vests only with the Controller and the High Court. Therefore, in a proceedings initiated by the registered proprietor for any of the reliefs to which he is entitled to under sub-section (2) of Section 22 or “In any suit” claiming other reliefs to which he is entitled to in law, if the defendant sets-up a defence and urges in additon to other grounds, grounds mentioned in Section 19 for cancellation of a registered design, then the Civil Court shall transfer the suit or toher proceeding for relief under sub-section (2) to the High Court for decision. No discretion is left to the Civil Court in this matter, once the ground set-out in Section 19 of the Act is urged as a ground of defence. As the Civil Court has no jurisdiciton to adjudicate the said grounds and has no jurisdiction to order for cancellation of a registered design, it shall transer the suit or such other jproceeding pending before it to the High Court for decision. 15. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial jude refusing to transfer the pending suit to this court when admittedly the second defendant has taken a defence under Section 19 of the Act contending that the design which is registered in favour of the plaintiff was not registerable at all, is erroneous and liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed (2) The impugned order passed on 2.2.2008 on IA under Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2000 is hereby quashed. (3) The said application is allowed. (4) The trial Court i.e., XVIII Addl. City Civil Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore CCH 29 is directed to tranfer the suit OS 27080/07 pending on his file to this Court under Section 22(4) of the Act forthwith.