ORDER : 1. Plaintiff instituted three separate suits, claiming itself to have a registered Copyright of three different Designs, for manufacturing/sale of carpet and alleging infringement of its registered Design by the respondent-defendant, prayed for issuance of a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as also prayed to award damages. 2. Plaintiff filed these suits before the District Judge, Jaipur Metro by virtue of proviso appended to Sub Section 2 of Section 2 2 of the Designs Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act of 2000’) which later on came to be transferred to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro. 3. Plaintiff and defendant in all three suits are common parties. Defendant in all three suits, submitted written statement, taking a defence therein that the design in question, of which plaintiff is claiming to have registered copyright and his absolute right to use, is not a new or original design. 4. Thereafter, plaintiff himself moved an application under Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000 before Additional District Judge, stating inter alia that since defendant has taken a plea in its written statements, out of grounds enumerated under Section 19 of the Act of 2000 for cancellation of registration, the suits should be transferred to the High Court as the jurisdiction of District Judge stands ousted. 5. On such application of plaintiff, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur vide order dated 27.03.2019 transferred all three suits to the High Court for decision. 6. Hence, in this manner these three suits, along with a contempt petition filed by petitioner-plaintiff have come before this Court for decision. 7. At the outset it is noteworthy that the High Court of judicature of Rajasthan does not have original civil jurisdiction and in the State of Rajasthan at Jaipur, after coming into effect of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Commercial Act, 2015’), Commercial Courts have been constituted under Section 3 of the Commercial Act, 2015. As per definition of ‘commercial dispute’, prescribed under Section 2 (c)(xvii) of Act, the disputes pertaining to “intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits” are included in ‘commercial dispute’. As per definition of ‘commercial dispute’, prescribed under Section 2 (c)(xvii) of Act, the disputes pertaining to “intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits” are included in ‘commercial dispute’. Therefore, disputes related to design are required to be heard by Commercial Court at Jaipur or by the Commercial Division Court of High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. 8. Hence, in that view, this Court deemed it just and proper to hear the counsel for both the parties on the jurisdictional issue, before proceeding further in these suits on merits. In the previous order dated 10.09.2025, this Court observed as under: “12. With the consent of counsel for both the parties before proceeding with the present suit on merits, this Court would like to hear and decide the jurisdiction of High Court, to entertain and decide the present suit, on merits. Counsel for both the parties may address this legal issue on the next date of hearing.” 9. Thus, with the consent of counsel for both the parties, afresh arguments have been heard on the jurisdictional issue as to which Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide these three issues for infringement of registered design of plaintiff and damages, whether District Court or Commercial Court or Commercial Division Court of High Court at Jaipur and whether the order dated 27.03.2019, passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur Metro, is legal and valid. 10. According to counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- defendant, present suits can be heard and decided by the District Judge or alternatively, by the Commercial Court, as the case may be, to consider the prayer of plaintiff for issuance of decree of permanent injunction and damages against defendant in respect of infringement his registered design of rugs and carpet. Learned counsel for respondent-defendant submits that merely for the reason that defendant has taken a plea in his written statement that the registered design of plaintiff is not a new or original design, which is also a ground for cancellation of registration of plaintiff as prescribed under Section 19 (c) of the Act of 2000, the jurisdiction of District Judge does not oust because the issue of cancellation/revocation of registration of design of plaintiff is not in issue before the District Judge. Hence, the order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro, can be set aside and the suits maybe referred back to the District Judge, to be heard by the District Judge or by the Commercial Court as the case may be. 11. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff supported the order dated 27.03.2019 and argued that once a ground for cancellation of registration, as envisaged under Section 19 (c) of the Act of 2000 has been taken by defendant as a defence in his written statement to the suits filed by plaintiff for issuance of a decree for permanent injunction and damages, the suit or all other proceedings has to be transferred by the District Judge to the High Court only in view of specific provision enumerated in proviso appended to Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000. Hence, according to counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, these three suits should be heard and decided by the High Court as the jurisdiction of District Judge stands ousted in view of the admitted fact that defendant has taken a plea of the ground enshrined under Section 19 (c) of the Act of 2000 as his defence. 12. Having heard counsel for both the parties at length and after perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions, this Court prima facie finds that in these three suits admittedly there is no prayer or counter claim of defendant, seeking to cancel the registration of design of plaintiff and the subject matter in the suits for decision is confined to the prayer of plaintiff for issuance of decree for permanent injunction and damages. The plea taken by defendant in his written statement that the registered design of plaintiff is not a new or original design has been taken by him just to contest the prayer of plaintiff seeking issuance of a decree for permanent injunction and damages against the defendant. 13. Concededly, a suit or any other proceedings, made in respect of piracy of a registered design, and for claiming injunction and damages etc. lies before the District Judge by virtue of second proviso of Section 22 (2) of the Act of 2000. 13. Concededly, a suit or any other proceedings, made in respect of piracy of a registered design, and for claiming injunction and damages etc. lies before the District Judge by virtue of second proviso of Section 22 (2) of the Act of 2000. Nevertheless, as per Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000, the suit or other proceedings shall be transferred by the District Court, to the High Court for decision where any ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 , has been availed as a ground of defence by the defendant. For ready reference, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 22 of the Act of 2000 hereunder:- “ 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 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) 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 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), ever 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 or which the registration of a design may be cancelled under section 19 has been availed of as a ground of 9 defence under sub- section (3) in any suit or other proceeding for relief under sub-section (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.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Before arriving at any conclusion this Court deems it just, proper and necessary to obtain assistance/guidance from the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on the subject in issue and to consider the judicial precedents expounded therein. 15. In case of Kadambukattil Exports Vs. Before arriving at any conclusion this Court deems it just, proper and necessary to obtain assistance/guidance from the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on the subject in issue and to consider the judicial precedents expounded therein. 15. In case of Kadambukattil Exports Vs. Nilkamal Ltd. MANU/KE/0384/2013 , the Kerala High Court while considering the issue of ouster of jurisdiction of the District Judge, just due to raising a plea of cancellation of registration of design under Section 19 of the Act by the defendant in written statement, concluded that since it is a well known rule of law that ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred and the provisions of statute to that effect has to be construed strictly, hence, as and when the jurisdiction of the District Judge is alleged to be ousted to decide any suit or other proceedings for the relief prayed under Sub- Section 2 of Section 2 2 of the Act of 2000, their must be a prima facie satisfaction that the plea of defendant raising ground for cancellation of registration of design under Section 19 of the Act has some substance and merit, which can be upheld to cancel the registration of design. It is not as if the moment defendant raises a plea, which enables him for cancellation of registration under Section 19 of the Act of 2000, jurisdiction of the District Judge is ousted automatically without further appreciation of the substance of plea and other ancillary facts and circumstances. The High Court of Kerala, after setting aside the order of the District Judge remanded the application of defendant, seeking transfer of suit from the District Judge to High Court under Section 2 2 (4) of the Act of 2000, to be considered afresh. The relevant portion of judgment i.e. Para No. 18 and 19, are as under:- “18. Having regard to Sec.22(4) of the Act, there is no reason why I should adopt a different standard. It is not as if the moment the defendant raises a plea which would enable him for cancellation of registration under Sec.19 of the Act jurisdiction of the District Court is ousted. Since it is a matter ousting jurisdiction of the District Court, such court must have the prima facie satisfaction that its jurisdiction is ousted. It is not as if the moment the defendant raises a plea which would enable him for cancellation of registration under Sec.19 of the Act jurisdiction of the District Court is ousted. Since it is a matter ousting jurisdiction of the District Court, such court must have the prima facie satisfaction that its jurisdiction is ousted. If a view as pleaded by the petitioner and accepted by the Karnataka High Court in the decision cited Supra is taken, it is possible for any defendant to raise even unnecessarily and without any basis a plea falling under Sec.19 of the Act, thereby oust jurisdiction of the District Court and prolong the proceeding. I am not inclined to think, that is the purport of the exclusionary clause contained in Sec.22(4) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court (in the decision ented Supra) that when there is a plea falling under Sec.19 of the Act, jurisdiction of the District court is ousted. The District Court whose jurisdiction is sought to be ousted by the plea for cancellation of registration of design of the plaintiff must prima facie be satisfied that there is the possibility of the plea of defendant under Sec.19 of the Act being upheld and thus its jurisdiction is ousted. Nor I am impressed by the contention that the defendant need only make an application for cancellation of registration in the prescribed form and hence a plea for cancellation of registration of the design alone is sufficient to oust jurisdiction of the District Court. A defendant who applies for cancellation of registration under Sec.19 of the Act has to substantiate his claim in the application. 19. It is admitted that petitioner had not produced any document in the Additional District Court to show prima facie that any of the grounds under Sec.19 of the Act is available to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of petitioner that jurisdiction of the Additional District Court is ousted by the mere plea raised in the written statement and that the said Court ought to have transferred the suit to this court for a decision.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of petitioner that jurisdiction of the Additional District Court is ousted by the mere plea raised in the written statement and that the said Court ought to have transferred the suit to this court for a decision.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Kerala High Court, respectively expressed disagreement to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka, in case of M/s Astral Polytechnik Limited Vs. M/s Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited , 2008 Supreme (Karnataka) 248 : 2008 ILR (Karnataka) 2533 . A perusal of the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka as a whole, reveals that defendant’s application filed under Section 2 2 (4) of the Design Act, 2000 was rejected by the District Judge, denying to transfer the suit to the High Court and thereagainst defendant approached before the High Court of Karnataka, by way of filing a writ petition. The High Court noticed the factual matrix as referred in Para No.4 of the judgment, that the defendant in Para No.17 of his written statement, set out a case that the designs of the plaintiff are not registrable under the Act and are liable to be cancelled on the grounds mentioned in the written statement. The High Court clearly observed that apart from denying the allegations of infringement and passing off the products of plaintiffs, defendant availed the grounds available under Section 19 of the Act to urge and pray that the plaintiffs design ought to be cancelled. Further in Para No. 14 of the judgment, the High Court observed that, though, the Civil Court has been vested with the powers and jurisdiction to decide the question of infringement, payment of damages and other reliefs, but has not been vested with the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a design made in the Act. The said power vests only with the controller and the High Court. The said power vests only with the controller and the High Court. Thus, on facts, the High Court was convinced that the defendant has set up a case in his written statement, on the basis of grounds set out in Section 19 of the Act of 2000, alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff’s design was not registrable at all and warrants cancellation of registration of such design, hence, in that backdrop of facts, the High Court held and observed in Para No.14 that “…...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 2 2 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 addition to other grounds, grounds mentioned in Section 19 of the Act of 2000 for cancellation of a registered design, than the Civil Court shall transfer the suit or other proceedings for relief under Sub- Section 2 of Section 2 2 to the High Court for decision. No discretion is left to the Civil Court in this matter, once the ground set up in Section 19 of the Act of 2000, urged as a ground of defence…..” Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the High Court of Karnataka reaches to the above conclusion in the backdrop of undisputed fact that on the basis of grounds set up by defendant in Written Statement based on the grounds set out in Section 19 of Design Act, 2000, the issue has arisen before the District Judge as to whether the plaintiffs design was registrable at all or not and as to whether, such registered design in favour of plaintiff should be cancelled or not, hence, in such factual matrix, the High Court opined that there is no discretion left with the Civil Court except to transfer the suit or other proceedings to the High Court under Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000. Such opinion, in sum and substance, does not render contrary to the view expressed by the Kerala High Court. Such opinion, in sum and substance, does not render contrary to the view expressed by the Kerala High Court. However, Kerala High Court, has already noted its disagreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and this Court, has its concurrence with the view of the Kerala High Court, though, finds that the judgment of Karnataka High Court was delivered in the peculiar facts of case as discussed hereinabove, hence, on deeper appreciation of the facts, the view of Karnataka High Court may not be said to be conflicting with the view of Kerala High Court. 17. This Court is also of the opinion that if substantive grounds have been raised by the defendant as his defence as prescribed under Section 19 of the Design Act, 2000, questioning the registration of plaintiff’s design and the issue of cancellation/ revocation of registered design comes up for consideration before the District Judge, certainly, the provisions of Section 22 (4) of the Design Act, would come in play and can be invoked/ pressed into service. 18. In case of Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs. Gautam Engineering Co. 2010 AIR (J&K) 13 : 2009 Supreme (J&K) 114 , the defendant has taken a defence in the written statement, offering the grounds under Section 19 of the Act of 2000 and made a prayer to cancel the registration of design in favour of plaintiff. In that backdrop of facts, the High Court of J&K held and observed in Para No. 13 as under:- “13. A perusal of the above shows that respondents in their written statement has taken the defence as referred to in Section 19 of the Act of 2000. Therefore, once such a defence is taken, then in terms of sub Section 4 of Section 22 of the Act of 2000, the court below has no power to decide the revocation of the design and it is only this court which has to adjudicate upon the matter and decide as to whether the design is to be cancelled or not. The court below, thus, has committed a legal error in not transferring the case to this court for adjudication after the application in this regard was filed by the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Similar issue came up before the Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in case of R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola Vs. The court below, thus, has committed a legal error in not transferring the case to this court for adjudication after the application in this regard was filed by the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Similar issue came up before the Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in case of R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola Vs. M/s Action Construction Equipments Ltd. Dhudhohla , 2016 SCC OnLine All 975 , in First Appeal decided vide judgment dated 27.06.2016. It appears that in that case Additional District Judge entered into examining the merits/demerits of the defence as taken by the defendant in his written statement, availing grounds as available under Section 19 of the Design Act, 2000 for cancellation of registration of design, hence, the High Court set aside the order of Additional District Judge and issued directions to transfer the matter to the High Court. The High Court held and observed in the concluding paragraph as under:- “In view of the discussions and in view of the conclusions drawn on the first issue that since a ground as available under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 was categorically taken as defence before the court below while filing the reply in response to the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff-respondent, in view of the provisions of Section 22 (4) of the Act, the court below has no option but to transfer the suit to the High Court. The District Judge is left with no jurisdiction save to make such order as is necessary to secure the physical transfer of the records to the High Court and orders on the interim injunction application is without jurisdiction and is bad and is liable to be set aside only for this reason alone. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I, therefore, hold that learned court below has committed an error of law in going into the merits of the defence as taken by the defendant-appellant on the grounds as available under Section 19 of the Act for the purpose of assuming or retaining jurisdiction for deciding the interim injunction application. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case as to whether the court below was justified or nor in granting interim injunction. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case as to whether the court below was justified or nor in granting interim injunction. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order 21.1.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in C.S.(O.S.) No. 2 of 2015 (M/s Action Construction Equipments Limited vs. R.N. Gupta & Company Limited & others) is hereby set aside. The court below is restrained in proceedings further with the matter and is directed to transfer the records of the case to the High Court at the earliest.” 20. The view of Allahabad High Court, while may not be treated as contrary, but has been expressed in a narrow scope in between the lines. The District Judge cannot act like a machine to transfer the matter to High Court without any application of mind and same certainly may not be the true object and spirit of Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000, for which it was meant. At least, District Judge may look into the matter before assuming ouster of his jurisdiction to deal with the matter as to whether the defence of defendant invites a decision of cancellation/ revocation of plaintiff’s registered design and as to whether or not any issue falls for consideration before him in respect of seeking cancellation/revocation of plaintiff’s registered design? 21. A verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in case of S.D. Containers Indore Vs. M/s Mold Tek Packaging Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 289 , decided vide judgment dated 1 st December, 2020 is most important, which throws a beacon of light on the subject matter in issue before this Court and extends support to the view of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the judgments of various High Courts, few of them are referred hereinabove. In Para No. 11 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “in terms of Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000, the defendant has a right to seek cancellation of the design which necessarily mandates the Court to transfer the suit. In Para No. 11 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “in terms of Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000, the defendant has a right to seek cancellation of the design which necessarily mandates the Court to transfer the suit. The transfer of suit is a ministerial act if there is a prayer for cancellation of the registration.” In Para No. 14 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held and observed as under:- “Furthermore, in the 2000 Act, there are two options available to seek revocation of registration. One of them is before the Controller, appeal against which would lie before the High Court. Second, in a suit for infringement in a proceeding before the civil court on the basis of registration certificate, the defendant has been given the right to seek revocation of registration. In that eventuality, the suit is to be transferred to the High Court in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the 2000 Act. Both are independent provisions giving rise to different and distinct causes of action.” (Emphasis supplied) In the same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the relevant provisions of statutes i.e. provisions of Design Act, 2000 and the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The disputes related to design were held to be falling within the meaning of ‘commercial dispute’, as defined under Section 2 (c)(xvii) of the Act of 2015. While dealing with Section 4 of the Commercial Act, 2015, it was observed that where High Courts have ordinary civil jurisdiction, the Commercial Division is required to be constituted in the High Court and a Commercial Appellate Division is required to be constituted in terms of Section 5. On the issue of transfer of suit to the High Court by virtue of Sub-Section 4 of Section 2 2 of the Act of 2000, it was observed that where the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the Commercial Division of the High Court shall hear and decide such commercial suits. On the issue of transfer of suit to the High Court by virtue of Sub-Section 4 of Section 2 2 of the Act of 2000, it was observed that where the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the Commercial Division of the High Court shall hear and decide such commercial suits. While dealing with Section 7 of the Act of 2000, it was observed that the suits or applications, relating to the commercial disputes of a specified value, can be filed in the High Court having ordinary jurisdiction, hence, in that situation, if a commercial dispute is transferred to the High Court by virtue of Section 2 2 (4) of the Act of 2000, same shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court, where the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. It would be better to reproduce the Para No. 11 of the judgment as it is:- “It is pertinent to mention that Section 7 of the 2015 Act only deals with the situation where the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. There is no provision in the 2015 Act either prohibiting or permitting the transfer of the proceedings under the 2000 Act to the High Courts which do not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Further, Section 21 of the 2015 Act gives an overriding effect, only if the provisions of the Act have anything inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act. Since the 2015 Act has no provision either prohibiting or permitting the transfer of proceedings under the 2000 Act, Section 21 of the 2015 Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 2000 Act. It is only the inconsistent provisions of any other law which will give way to the provisions of the 2015 Act. In terms of Section 22 (4) of the 2000 Act, the defendant has a right to seek cancellation of the design which necessarily mandates the Courts to transfer the suit. The transfer of suit is a ministerial act if there is a prayer for cancellation of the registration. In terms of Section 22 (4) of the 2000 Act, the defendant has a right to seek cancellation of the design which necessarily mandates the Courts to transfer the suit. The transfer of suit is a ministerial act if there is a prayer for cancellation of the registration. In fact, transfer of proceedings from one Bench to the Commercial Division supports the argument raised by learned counsel for the Appellant that if a suit is to be transferred to Commercial Division of the High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, then the Civil Suit in which there is plea to revoke the registered design has to be transferred to the High Court where there is no ordinary original civil jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Having been enlightened with the Judicial precedents, expounded in the above referred case law most importantly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in case of S.D. Containers Indore (supra) , this Court reaches to the conclusion that for application of Sub-Section 4 of Section 2 2 of the Designs Act, 2000 an issue of cancellation of a registered design must fall for consideration before the District Judge or the Commercial Court as the case may be, hence, if in any suit or other proceedings for relief claimed under Sub- Section 2 of Section 2 2 of the Act of 2000, any ground on which the registration of design may be cancelled under Section 19 has been availed of by the defendant as a ground of defence and an issue arises before the District Judge or the Commercial Court as the case may be, as to whether the registered design is liable to be cancelled or not, or the registered design was at all registrable or not, in that situation, the suit or other proceedings shall stand transferred from the District Judge or from Commercial Court as the case may be, or from the Court wherein such suit or other proceedings are pending, to the High Court for decision. It is because the legal position is well established that the District Judge or the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be, does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of cancellation/ revocation of a registered design and cannot consider such an issue on merits. 23. It is because the legal position is well established that the District Judge or the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be, does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of cancellation/ revocation of a registered design and cannot consider such an issue on merits. 23. As per enunciation and discussion made hereinabove, since undisputedly in the present suits, there is no prayer or counter claim of the defendant seeking cancellation/ revocation of the registration of the design in question in favour of plaintiff nor any issue, questioning the registered design of plaintiff has been framed or falls for consideration nor any decision thereupon is warranted, hence, the invocation of provisions of Section 22 (4) of the Design Act, 2000, by the petitioner-plaintiff does not come in operation and the transfer of present suits to the High Court for decision in view of Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000 is unwarranted. 24. As a result, the order dated 27.03.2019 is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 25. For statistical purposes, the present Civil Suits and Contempt Petition be treated as disposed of from the record of High Court. 26. Let original Record of these suits along with Civil Contempt Petition filed by and on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff be returned back to the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I to proceed further in accordance with law. It shall be open to the District Judge to transfer the suits to Additional District Judge or to the Commercial Court as it thinks just and proper, considering the specified value of the suits and provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 27. In view of the fact that present suits were filed way back in the year 2012, wherein although pleadings are complete and issues have been framed yet, evidence is to be recorded, hence, it is hereby directed that proceedings in the present suit shall be continued further from the present stage of suits and all endeavor shall be made by the Court, which would hear these suits to conclude the trial expeditiously and decide these matters as early as possible, preferably within a period of 1 year, if possible, from the date on which the hearing begins and both parties shall also extend cooperation in deciding the suit expeditiously and in accordance with law. 28. Interim stay order already passed shall remain continue. 29. 28. Interim stay order already passed shall remain continue. 29. Registry is directed to send the entire original record to the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur along with copy of this order forthwith.