ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner assailing order dated 14/10/2014 passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 2. Brief facts noticed are that a suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer) for permanent injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC came to be filed by the defendant-petitioner before the said court inter-alia mentioning that the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the suit ought to have been filed before the District Judge, Ajmer and the District Judge, Ajmer could have assigned the case to himself or to an appropriate Court of the Additional District Judge and therefore, the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh suo-motu does not have jurisdiction to try such suit and the suit, therefore deserves to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. 3. The Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC holding that the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh has jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner contended that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the suit could not have been filed in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and since there is no Court of the rank of District Judge at Kishangarh, therefore, the suit ought to have been filed before the District Judge, Ajmer and the District Judge, Ajmer in his discretion may have decided himself or assigned the matter to the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh or any other Court of the rank of Additional District Judge and in the instant case, the suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 having been directly filed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh deserves to be dismissed as it has got no jurisdiction to try such matter. Counsel, in the alternative, submits that the suit may be returned to the plaintiff-respondent for filing it before appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 5. Counsel, in the alternative, submits that the suit may be returned to the plaintiff-respondent for filing it before appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent while supporting the order of the learned trial court has contended that the learned trial court has dismissed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in correct manner and there is no error in the order of the learned trial court. He further contended that Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Court, 1950 confers power to the concerned Courts of Additional District Judge to try such suits and appeals and such suits and appeals can be directly instituted to the Courts of concerned Additional District Judge and even otherwise, in case if a suit is directly filed in the Court of District Judge concerned, he has discretion to transfer such suits/appeals to the concerned Courts of the Additional District Judge concerned within his judgeship as per jurisdiction. He further contended that Additional District Judge, Kishangarh is having same powers and competence to that of the District Judge as regards trial of the suit/appeal, as the case may be, is concerned and as such, the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh has got jurisdiction to try such suits under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have gone through the order impugned as well as the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the suit has been filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and as per Section 134 of the said Act, no suit for infringement etc. shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. Admittedly, the suit has been filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and as per Section 134 of the said Act, no suit for infringement etc. shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. However, in the instant case, the suit has been filed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer) as both the parties are having their office at Madanganj Kishangarh (Ajmer) the suit has rightly been filed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh as the Court of Additional District Judge is having same powers and even otherwise, if any suit is filed before the Court of District Judge, the District Judge concerned, under Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Court, 1950 confers power to the concerned Courts of Additional District Judge to try such suits and appeals and such suits and appeals are ordered to be directly instituted to the Courts of those concerned Additional District Judge and that apart, if a suit is directly filed in the Court of District Judge concerned, he for the purpose of distribution of work has discretion to transfer such suits/appeals to the concerned Courts of the Rank of Additional District Judge concerned within his judgeship as per jurisdiction. 8. In the instant case, the Court of District Judge is only at Ajmer and at Kishangarh, there is Court of Additional District Judge which is having same powers to that of the District Judge, Ajmer and both the parties having their office at Madanganj Kishangarh, in my view, the suit has rightly been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh and the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh has got jurisdiction to try such suits under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and I find no error, illegality or ambiguity in the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh in passing the order impugned so as to call for interference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the revision petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.