(Prayer : Original Side appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, pleased to set aside the judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2024 in OP(PT).No.1 of 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court.)

1. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023, dated 28.03.2024 filed under Section 64 of Indian Patents Act, 1970 to revoke Patent No.411774, which was granted filed this appeal.

2. The appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023, dated 28.03.2024, was returned by the Registry raising issue of Maintainability.

3. The Patent granted to the appellant in Patent No.411774 was revoked by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023 filed by the 1st respondent. Since the order was passed under Patents Act, which is one of the Intellectual Property laws covered under the Commercial Courts Act, the Registry has raised the issue of Maintainability in the light of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge revoking the patent granted is a final order and therefore, the judgment includes the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on the application filed under Section 64 of Patents Act, 1970.

5. The right of appeal conferred on a litigant under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent cannot be taken away, just because the order passed under a Special Act other than the Code and not find place in the list of appealable orders mentioned in Order 43, Rule 1 of Original Side Rules.

6. The Learned Single Judge, upon adjudication of the lis, in exercise of powers under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, allowed the original application and therefore, further appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable.

7. Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads as below:-

                     “13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.

                     (1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:

                     Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)”

8. The appeal is not against the judgement or decree passed in a suit. The order passed in an original petition filed under the special statute, namely, the Patents Act. Hence, Order XXXVI of the Original Side Rules is not applicable to the case in hand. However, in respect of the order passed in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023 by the Intellectual Property Division of the Original Side of the Madras High Court, the intra-court appeal, as contemplated under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is applicable.

9. When a similar issue came before the High Court of Delhi in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, has held that there is a distinction between the High Court exercising its original civil jurisdiction and when it assumes jurisdiction to decide by virtue of an independent statutory conferral of power. The jurisdiction to entertain rectification applications, which was conferred with erstwhile IPAB and now transferred to High Court by virtue of the Tribunals Reforms Act under which the IPAB was abolished. Therefore, the power exercised by the Learned Single Judge when entertaining a petition filed for rectification, its jurisdiction is conferred under the special Statute and not in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, being a final order, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023 is appealable. Hence, the appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is maintainable.

10. However, in this case, the appellant has assigned nomenclature to his appeal as O.S.A.(CAD), which requires corrections.

11. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to return the papers to the appellant to make the necessary corrections. Once the corrections are made, the appeal may be numbered, if it is otherwise in order.