ORDER : With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the court below dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner herein under section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000'). It is a case where non-petitioner filed a petition under section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. During pendency of the said petition, petitioner herein submitted an application under section 22(4) of the Act of 2000. It is to seek direction for transfer of the case to the High Court. The application aforesaid has been dismissed by the court below. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as and when a petition under section 22 of the Act of 2000 is filed and defence under section 19 of the Act of 2000 is availed, the court is having no option but to transfer the case to the High Court. It is a case where a petition under section 22 of the Act was filed by the non-petitioner and petitioner moved an application under section 19 before the Controller of Designs at Kolkata. He had taken defence in reference to section 19 of the Act of 2000 on the petition filed by the non-petitioner under section 22 of the Act. In the light of the defence taken by the petitioner, the court below was having no option but to transfer the case to the High Court but ignoring the provision of section 22(4) of the Act of 2000, the application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed. In view of aforesaid, while setting aside the impugned order, the case may be transferred to the High Court. Learned counsel for non-petitioner submits that on a petition under section 22, other party can take a defence under section 19 of the Act but it is not that as and when such a defence is taken, the suit be transferred to the High Court. The satisfaction has to be recorded by the court to find out whether defence under section 19 of the Act is made out or not. The court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. A reference of the judgment in the case of “Kadambukattil Exports versus Nilkamal Ltd”, ILR 2013 (2) Kerala 545 has been given. Therein, same issue was decided. The court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. A reference of the judgment in the case of “Kadambukattil Exports versus Nilkamal Ltd”, ILR 2013 (2) Kerala 545 has been given. Therein, same issue was decided. It is held that unless prima facie satisfaction in reference to defence under section 19 of the Act is recorded by the court, the jurisdiction of the district court cannot be ousted. In view of the judgment in the case supra, the order so passed by the court below be upheld. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that a petition under section 22 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the non-petitioner herein. The defence under section 19 of the Act has been availed by the petitioner herein. He had also filed application under section 19 of the Act for cancellation of the registration before the Controller of Designs. The petitioner thereafter made an application under section 22(4) of the Act. The reference of section 19 and 22 of the Act of 2000 has been given thus both the provisions are reproduced hereunder for ready reference – “19. (1) Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design at any time after the registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the followinggrounds, namely:- (a) that the design has been previously registered in India; or (b) that it has been published in India or in any other country prior to the date of registration; or (c) that the design is not a new or original design; or (d) that the design is not registrable under this Act; or (e) it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2. (2) An appeal shall lie from any order of the Controller under this section to the High Court, and the Controller may at any time refer any such petition to the High Court, and the High Court shall decide any petition so referred. 22. (2) An appeal shall lie from any order of the Controller under this section to the High Court, and the Controller may at any time refer any such petition to the High Court, and the High Court shall decide any petition so referred. 22. Piracy of registered design.- (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for anyperson- (a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation 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, any article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, or (c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation 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 publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article. 2. (1) If any person acts in contravention 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 proprietor 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 awarded and to be restrained by injunction 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 subsection 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso to sub-Section (2), where any ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled 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 subsection (2), the suit or such other proceedings shall be transferred by the Court in which the suit or such other proceeding is pending, to the High Court for decision. (5) When the court makes a decree in a suit under sub-section (2),it shall send a copy of the decree to the Controller, who shall cause an entry thereof to be made in the register of designs.” Section 19 provides for cancellation of registration and, in the instant case, on filing of a petition under section 22 of the Act by the non-petitioner, a written statement was filed by the petitioner herein. The defence in reference to section 19 of the Act was availed. Subsequently, an application under section 22(4) of the Act of 2000 was filed for transfer of the case to the High Court. The petitioner also availed remedy before the Controller of Designs for cancellation of the registration. The question for my consideration is as to whether the court should first record its prima facie satisfaction to the defence taken in reference to section 19 of the Act before transfer of the case to the High Court or by implication of section 22(4) of the Act of 2000, petition has to be transferred to the High Court. As per section 22(4) of the Act of 2000, notwithstanding anything contained in second proviso to sub7 section (2) of section 22, if any ground on which registration of design may be cancelled under section 19, has been availed as a ground of defence and sub section (3) in a suit or other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), the suit or other proceeding shall be transferred by the court to the High Court for its decision. The language of section 22(4) of the Act does not suggest that before transfer of case, a prima facie satisfaction is to be recorded on a defence availed under section 19 of the Act of 2000. This court is not having competence to re-frame the provision legislated by the Legislature. Similar issue was decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case of “M/s Astral Polytechnic Limited represented by its Chief Finance Officer versus M/s Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited & anr”, 2008 Kar HC 262. The reference of the said judgment was made before the Kerala High Court in the case of Kadambukattil Exports (supra) but was not relied. The Kerala High Court was of the view that as and when defence under section 19 is taken, a prima facie satisfaction has to be recorded before ousting jurisdiction of the district court. In my opinion, the view expressed by the Kerala High Court cannot be accepted as correct. If prima facie satisfaction of defence is to be recorded, the language of section 22(4) of the Act of 2000 is to be modified or to be amended. This court is not having jurisdiction to reframe the provision though on a challenge to the constitutional validity, it can be struck down. The plain reading of section 22(4) of the Act shows that as and when defence under section 19 is availed then the case need to be transferred to the High Court. In view of above, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the court below. In the result, impugned order challenged herein is set aside with acceptance of the application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. At this stage, learned counsel for non-petitioner submits that transfer of the case to the High Court may involve 4 to 5 months time thus be ordered to be transferred immediately with a direction to the parties to appear before the High Court. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for petitioner. In view of above, the court below is directed to transfer the case immediately and parties would appear before the High Court on 9.5.2016.