JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The defendants have filed the present application praying for framing of preliminary issue: “Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the present suit?” 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants, for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants, agents, assigns, distributors, stockists and dealers from in any way or any manner infringing the plaintiff's trademark “KHAITAN” or any other words identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff. 3. Learned Advocate representing the defendants submitted that the defendants are carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court and admittedly the defendants are not selling the product having trademark “KHAITAR” within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He submits that as per the averments made in paragraph 52 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendants are selling products having mark of “Khaitar” in and around Hyderabad and Telangana which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff has also pleaded that the acts of passing off has been committed and is continuing to be committed outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned Advocate for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action of the plaintiff relating to passing off has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court but the plaintiff has sought for leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 to join the separate cause of action to institute the present suit before this Court. The defendants further contended that the trademark of both the parties as “Khaitan” and “Khaitar” are registered under Clause 11 and thus suit for infringement under section 28 (3) of the Trade Marks Act, does not lie. 5. The defendants further contended that in the show-cause notice dated 22nd July, 2020, the defendants had duly informed that the defendant no. 1 is permitted to use the trademark “Khaitar” and the defendant no. 2 is the registered proprietor but the plaintiff has not filed any application for cancellation of registration and removal of registered trade mark from the register of the Registrar of Trade Marks before the concern authorities. The defendants contended that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 is permitted to use the trademark “Khaitar” and the defendant no. 2 is the registered proprietor but the plaintiff has not filed any application for cancellation of registration and removal of registered trade mark from the register of the Registrar of Trade Marks before the concern authorities. The defendants contended that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 have obtained their registered mark under Clause 11 as “Khaitar” and “Khaitar” respectively and thus this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, learned Advocate representing the defendants relied upon the judgments (2022) 8 SCC 401 (Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Ors.), (2018) 14 SCC 1 (Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and Ors.), (2016) 2 SCC 683 (S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai), 2023 SCC Online Del 4185 (Vasundhara Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP and Another), 2017 SCC Online Bom 7327 (Harman Overseas and Others v. Dongguan TR Bearing Company Limited) and 2016 SCC Online Cal 11849 (Skipper Limited v. Akash Bansal & Ors.) and submitted that if the Court is satisfied that ex-facie, the suit is not maintainable or that the act of filing a suit is an abuse of process of law, the Court will be justified in exercising the discretion by refusing to grant leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. He submits that if after considering the reply filed by the defendants, the Court is satisfied that grant of leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent will amount to causing harassment to the defendants or will cause undue hardship to them, the Court may refuse to grant leave. 7. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submitted that it is settled law that registration in favour of the defendant is by itself no bar to a suit for infringement of a registered mark. He submits that merely because the defendants are the registered proprietors of a particular deceptively similar mark, does not mean that the proprietor losses its rights to initiate infringement and passing off action against the defendant. 8. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the defendants have raised defence under Section 30(2)(e) as its mark being registered but the plaintiff has applied for rectification of the register with respect to defendants registration. 8. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the defendants have raised defence under Section 30(2)(e) as its mark being registered but the plaintiff has applied for rectification of the register with respect to defendants registration. He submits that the plaintiff has also made out a case of passing off. 9. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the defendant had earlier filed an application being G.A No. 2 of 2021 for dismissal of the suit but the said application was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5th March, 2021 and this Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. He further submits that the defendants had preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 5th March, 2021 but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP by an order dated 9th April, 2021. 10. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the plaintiff has claimed relief both on account of infringement of its trade mark as also for passing off and there are pleadings in the plaint which makes out a case of passing off. He submits that plaintiff has categorically used the words “identical and deceptively” similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff in the plaint to make out a case of both infringement of its registered trade mark and also for passing off. 11. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgments (1996) 5 SCC 714 (N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation and Anr.), 2000 (3) MhLJ 637 (Procter and Gamble (India) Ltd v. Endolabs Limited and Another) and 2019 SCC Online Bom 13114 (Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. Stanford Siyaram Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and Others) and submitted that the plaintiff apart from claiming infringement of its registered trade mark, is also claiming relief on account of passing off. He submits that the plaintiff has claimed that the mark used by the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and public at large are being deceived by the marked used by the defendant. 12. He submits that the plaintiff has claimed that the mark used by the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and public at large are being deceived by the marked used by the defendant. 12. On a plain reading of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, it appears that if the plaintiff has several cause of action against the defendant and if such cause of action is not in relation to any land or other immoveable property and if the High Court is having original jurisdiction in respect of one of such cause of action, it shall be lawful for the High Court to call on the defendant to show cause by the several cause of action should not be joined together in suit. The very purpose is to save costs, time, avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. The said clause is in pari materia with Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid provision enables the joinder of several cause of action in one suit subject to certain restrictions. A party should not be vexed twice. The defendant is unable to show that if all the cause of actions are united, it would cause a real inconvenience or that the said cause of action cannot be conveniently tried. It is needless to mention that several cause of actions can be combined provided they are intimately connected so as to justify their being included in one suit. The plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for infringement in this Court is not in dispute. The question arises if the plaintiff could unite the action of passing off along with its claim or infringement under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. That of the two several issues, this High Court has jurisdiction to try action for infringement is a relevant consideration to examine if the plaintiff should be permitted to unite along with infringement action, an action, for passing off. The learned Counsel of the defendant has referred to Paragraph 52 of the Plaint and argued that cause of action pleaded in the said paragraph would clearly show that the plaintiff is alleging passing off which has no nexus to the other part of the pleadings concerning infringement. The learned Counsel of the defendant has referred to Paragraph 52 of the Plaint and argued that cause of action pleaded in the said paragraph would clearly show that the plaintiff is alleging passing off which has no nexus to the other part of the pleadings concerning infringement. The action for infringement and passing off are independent and the Court should not unite cause of action to grant leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent is the other objection. The suit is filed with the prayer for passing off and necessary averments are present for obtaining leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The plaintiff in order to establish its claim in respect of infringement action would be required to produce evidence which would be common to both infringement and passing off. A reading of the plaint would also show that the cause of action in respect of infringement as also passing off against the defendant are closely interlinked. The use of the defendant of the impugned mark is a pre-requisite for the plaintiff to succeed its claim for both infringement and for passing off of its trademark. In order to determine whether the defendant's mark is similar to the plaintiff's mark or an imitation of the plaintiff's mark, the same tests would have to be followed both in case of infringement and passing off. The defendant in any event would have to meet the case of the plaintiff based on infringement of the impugned mark and the cause of action in relation to passing cannot either cause embarrassment to the defendant or inconvenience. On the contrary, in my view, it would prevent multiplicity of proceedings and embarrassment by simultaneous investigations. It is settled law that plaintiff may not only join different cause of action against the same defendant or the same defendants as provided under Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure but he may also joint different cause of action against the defendants if he is able to bring his case within the purview of Order 2, Rule 3 . In the instant case, Clause 14 which enables the plaintiff to join other cause of action if in respect of one of the cause of action, the Court has jurisdiction. In the instant case, Clause 14 which enables the plaintiff to join other cause of action if in respect of one of the cause of action, the Court has jurisdiction. The answer to the show cause really does not demonstrate that any inconvenience would be caused to the defendant in the event trial takes place in this Court. On the contrary, it would benefit both the parties in the event both the issues are decided by this Court and it would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This matter can be viewed from another angle. The Court has a power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more cause of action are united and treated as one cause. The main purpose is to save costs, time and avoid multiplicity of proceedings and convenience by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises, inter alia, where there are two or more causes pending in the Court and it appears that some question of law or fact arises in both of the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for the some other reason, it is desirable to make an order directing consolidation of suits. The ultimate issue for the decision in the instant case would be the factum of prior use of the mark by the plaintiff which would also be a relevant consideration and forming part of the evidence in establishing a claim based on passing off. The evidence that has to be led in cases of both the cause of action to a large extent would be common and there would be no embarrassment if the cause of actions are tried together especially in the context the defendant would be obliged to defend its action on infringement in this Court. It is undisputed that in respect one cause of action, this Court has jurisdiction. 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that prior to filing of the present application, the defendant had filed an application being G.A No. 2 of 2021 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability but by an order dated 5th March, 2021, this Court had dismissed the said application by passing the following order: “12. 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that prior to filing of the present application, the defendant had filed an application being G.A No. 2 of 2021 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability but by an order dated 5th March, 2021, this Court had dismissed the said application by passing the following order: “12. In view of the discussions in Paragraph 4 and 5 herein, it cannot be said that the cause of action of the instant suit is based solely on infringement of a registered trade mark. The plaintiff has pleaded and sought release with regard to passing off. The plaint has disclosed cause of action for the passing off. The plaintiff has claimed prior user of the mark also. Therefore, the instant suit cannot be said to be maintainable. 13. In such circumstances, IA GA No. 2 of 2021 is dismissed without any order as to costs.” The said order was challenged by the defendant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4750 of 2021 and by an order dated 9th April, 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the said SLP. 14. In view of the above, G.A No. 6 of 2023 is thus dismissed. 15. Leave is granted to the plaintiff under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent to join together its cause of action against the defendant in respect of infringement and passing off its trade mark “KHAITAN” and to have the same tried and adjudicated in CS No. 155 of 2020.