SC-Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd

Once Abandoned, Forever Lost: The Doctrine of Deemed Abandonment of Trademark Invalidity Plea Under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

An Analysis of Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Ors. v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors. (2017)

Introduction

The law of trademarks in India is built upon a careful balance between two competing interests. On one hand, the registered owner of a trademark enjoys a powerful bundle of rights — the exclusive right to use the mark, the right to stop others from using something similar, and the right to seek damages and injunctions in court. On the other hand, the law also recognizes that a trademark registration is not always beyond challenge. If a mark was registered wrongly — say, without genuine intention to use it, or after a long period of non-use — any person who is harmed by such registration has the right to go to the appropriate authority and seek its removal from the register. This second right is what trade mark law calls the right to seek 'rectification.'

The question that has troubled courts for years is this: what happens when both these aspects — a lawsuit for infringement on one side and a challenge to the registration's validity on the other — collide in the same legal dispute? Can a defendant in an infringement suit, who initially raises the question of the mark's validity but then fails to pursue that argument before the proper authority, later come back and launch a fresh attack on the registration through a separate rectification application? Or does the failure to pursue the validity challenge in time permanently shut that door?

This is precisely the question that the Supreme Court of India resolved, with clarity and finality, in its judgment dated 29th November 2017 in Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Ors. v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors. [MANU/SC/1509/2017]. A bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha answered this question by holding that when a party raises the invalidity of a trademark in an infringement suit but fails to follow through and file a rectification application within the time prescribed by Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the plea of invalidity is deemed to have been abandoned — and this abandonment is permanent. It is not merely a procedural concession made for the purpose of the suit; it extinguishes the substantive right to challenge the registration altogether through a separate proceeding under Sections 46 and 56 of the same Act.

The case has particular importance because it not only resolves the question under the old 1958 Act but also gives authoritative guidance on the corresponding provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — specifically Sections 47, 57, 124 and 125 — which are in virtually identical terms. The ruling thus shapes trademark litigation practice under the currently applicable law as well.

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent in the main appeals, P.M. Diesels Ltd., is the registered owner of three trademarks, each built around the words 'Field Marshal.' The Registrar of Trade Marks had issued registration certificates in favour of the respondent company (through its predecessor) for the mark 'Field Marshal' bearing Registration No. 224879, dated 16th October 1964; for the mark 'Field Marshal' in a distinctive lettering style bearing Registration No. 252070, dated 4th October 1968; and for the combined mark 'FM Field Marshal' bearing Registration No. 252071-B, also dated 4th October 1968. These registrations thus had a long pedigree, stretching back to the mid-1960s.

Sometime in the year 1982, the appellants — Patel Field Marshal Agencies and their associated concerns — applied for the registration of the trademark 'Marshal' for their own use. When P.M. Diesels Ltd. came to know of this application, it perceived a clear similarity between the mark 'Marshal' being sought by the appellants and its own registered marks centred on the words 'Field Marshal.' Accordingly, the respondent served a legal notice on the appellants dated 23rd July 1982 calling upon them to stop using the mark 'Marshal.'

Despite this notice, the matter escalated. In the year 1989, P.M. Diesels Ltd. filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi, being Suit No. 1612 of 1989, seeking three forms of relief: first, a declaration of infringement of its registered trademarks; second, a rendition of accounts of the profits earned by the appellants through the use of the mark 'Marshal'; and third, a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from using the trading styles 'Patel Field Marshal Agencies' and 'Patel Field Marshal Industries.' Along with the suit, an application for a temporary injunction was also filed.

The appellants, who were defendants in the suit, contested the claims on two grounds — first, that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction over the matter (both pecuniary and territorial), and second, on the merits of the infringement allegation. Importantly, in their written statement, the defendants also challenged the validity of the respondent's registration of the 'Field Marshal' trademark, claiming it was liable to be rectified. An issue to this effect was framed in the suit.

The Delhi High Court, by its order dated 28th September 1995, dismissed the application for interim injunction holding that it lacked jurisdiction. In appeal, the Division Bench reversed this on 10th March 1998 and directed the application to be considered on merits. The matter then reached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13512 of 1998. While that SLP was pending, and acting on the Division Bench's remand, a single judge of the Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of P.M. Diesels Ltd. on 7th July 1999.

Years later, by a subsequent order dated 20th August 2008, the same single judge held that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction and directed the return of the plaint for filing before a competent court in Gujarat. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) challenged this before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by order dated 24th October 2008, held the return of the plaint to be technically incorrect but, since the plaintiff had no objection to proceeding in Gujarat, directed the plaint to be returned for filing at Rajkot. The case was thereafter transferred and numbered as Civil Suit No. 1 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot, Gujarat.

Crucially, while the infringement suit was still pending before the Delhi High Court, the appellants took a significant parallel step. In the year 1997, they filed three separate rectification applications before the High Court of Gujarat, bearing RA Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1997, under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, seeking removal and cancellation of P.M. Diesels Ltd.'s three registered trademarks bearing Nos. 224879, 252070 and 252071.

A single judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed all three rectification applications by order dated 15th April 1998. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court affirmed this dismissal on 25th November 1998. It is this order of the Division Bench that was challenged by the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4767 to 4769 of 2001 before the Supreme Court. Additionally, a connected matter arising from another infringement dispute involving similar issues came up through Civil Appeal No. 19938 of 2017 (arising from SLP (C) No. 27309 of 2012), and yet another related SLP (C) No. 30121 of 2012 was filed but was subsequently withdrawn. A further appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 1851 of 2009 challenged the order of the Delhi High Court returning the plaint to Rajkot, but the Supreme Court treated this as effectively closed, noting that the plaintiff had voluntarily complied with the single judge's direction. Therefore, the two substantive appeals that remained for consideration were Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001 and the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 27309 of 2012.

The Core Dispute

The Supreme Court identified and precisely formulated the central legal question before it as follows: in a situation where a suit for infringement of a trademark is pending, and the issue of validity of the trademark's registration has been raised by a party in that suit, but no issue on that question has been framed or, if framed, has not been pursued by the concerned party by filing an application to the High Court for rectification under Section 111 read with Section 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 — would that party still have the right to independently pursue a rectification application under Sections 46 and 56 of the same Act to contest the validity of the trademark registration?

The appellants argued that the rights under Sections 46 and 56 of the 1958 Act are completely independent and parallel rights — they are separate from the procedure contemplated by Sections 107 and 111. These two sets of rights operate in different fields. The right to seek rectification is a statutory right vested in any 'person aggrieved' — which, as the Supreme Court had held in National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. [MANU/SC/0369/1970 : AIR 1971 SC 898], includes a person against whom an infringement action has been taken or is threatened. The appellants argued that the process under Section 111 only involves a civil court 'framing an issue' and 'staying the suit' — it does not amount to granting or refusing 'permission' to file a rectification application. The requirement of first obtaining leave from a subordinate court (the District Court) before approaching a superior court (the High Court) would also be contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits a subordinate court from preventing a party from approaching a higher court. Reliance was placed on the Madras High Court's decision in B. Mohamed Yousuff v. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh and Ors. [MANU/TN/2924/2006 : (2008) 38 PTC 576] and the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Data Infosys Limited and Ors. v. Infosys Technologies Limited [MANU/DE/0283/2016 : 2016 (65) PTC 209], both of which had taken the view that the right to seek rectification under Sections 46/47 and 56/57 survives independently even when a suit is pending.

The respondent, represented by senior counsel Mr. Harin P. Raval, took a diametrically opposite position. The argument was that Sections 46 and 56 on one side and Sections 107 and 111 on the other side operate in two different and mutually exclusive fields. Sections 46 and 56 govern the situation where no infringement suit is pending — they allow a person aggrieved to approach the Registrar or the High Court for rectification independently. But once a suit for infringement is filed and the issue of invalidity arises within that suit, the entire machinery of Section 111 takes over. At that point, the statutory scheme mandates a specific procedure: the civil court must first find the plea of invalidity to be prima facie tenable, frame an issue, and give three months to the concerned party to move the High Court for rectification. If the party fails to do so, Section 111(3) provides that the issue of invalidity shall be 'deemed to have been abandoned.' The respondent's crucial submission was that this abandonment is not merely for the purpose of the suit — it is a complete and permanent relinquishment of the right, which cannot be resurrected through a separate rectification application under Sections 46/56.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Scheme of the 1958 Act

Justice Ranjan Gogoi, writing for the bench, began the analysis by setting out the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court noted that Section 46 allows any person aggrieved to apply to the High Court or the Registrar for removal of a registered trademark from the register — primarily on two grounds: first, that the trademark was registered without any genuine (bona fide) intention to use it and there has in fact been no genuine use; or second, that for a continuous period of five years or more, the mark, though registered, was not genuinely used. Section 56 separately empowers the Tribunal — which means either the Registrar or the High Court, as appropriate — to cancel or vary the registration of a trademark on the ground of any contravention or failure to observe a condition of registration, or to rectify any incorrect entry in the register.

Section 107 introduces an important modification to the default position. Where a suit for infringement is pending and the validity of a trademark registration is questioned within that suit, any application for rectification must be made to the High Court and not to the Registrar — and this rule applies 'notwithstanding anything contained in Section 46' or Section 56. The court observed that this special channelling of the rectification application to the High Court (as opposed to the Registrar) in a pending suit context already signals that the legislative scheme operates differently when a suit is afoot.

The court then turned to the heart of the matter — Section 111. This provision, titled 'Stay of proceedings where the validity of registration of the trade mark is questioned,' does far more than merely provide for a stay. Its full operation was traced by the court as follows: if a suit for infringement is filed and a plea of invalidity is raised by either party, and if rectification proceedings are already pending before the Registrar or the High Court, the suit must be stayed pending the outcome of those proceedings. If no such proceedings are pending and the civil court finds the plea of invalidity to be prima facie tenable, it must frame an issue and give the concerned party three months to apply to the High Court for rectification. If the party does file a rectification application within that time, the suit stays pending the outcome. If no application is filed within the stipulated time, Section 111(3) mandates that the issue of invalidity is 'deemed to have been abandoned' and the suit proceeds on the other issues. Sub-section (4) of Section 111 further provides that the final order in the rectification proceeding shall be binding on the civil court.

The Question of Whether Sections 46/56 Survive Independently

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the view of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Data Infosys Limited (supra) and the Madras High Court in B. Mohamed Yousuff (supra), both of which had held that the right to seek rectification under Sections 46/47 and 56/57 survives independently even after the deemed abandonment in the suit context. The court charted a different and, in its view, the correct path.

The court reasoned that it is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the heading of a section — while useful as a guide — does not control the meaning of the entire section's text. The heading of Section 111 says 'Stay of proceedings where validity of registration is questioned' but the actual content of Section 111 goes far beyond merely providing for a stay. It sets up an elaborate mechanism for deciding the validity question, binding the civil court to the outcome, and — crucially — providing for the deemed abandonment of the plea if the concerned party does not move the High Court within time. The section must be read as a whole, and its heading cannot confine its operation.

The court's core reasoning was this: all questions relating to the validity of a trademark registration must be decided by the Tribunal — the Registrar or the High Court under the 1958 Act, or the Registrar or the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under the 1999 Act. The civil court is not empowered to decide the question of validity of a registered trademark. Parliament's design was to ensure that the question of validity is always channelled to the statutory authority with the expertise and jurisdiction to decide it, and the civil court is bound by whatever that authority decides.

When a suit is pending, the procedure for exercising this jurisdiction is different from the procedure when no suit is pending. When no suit is pending, a person aggrieved can freely approach the Registrar or the High Court under Sections 46 and 56. But when a suit is pending, the exercise of the statutory authority's jurisdiction to decide validity is contingent on the civil court first forming a prima facie view that the plea is tenable. This is not the civil court 'granting permission' to file a rectification application — it is a threshold screening mechanism to prevent frivolous and untenable invalidity claims from being raised as a delaying tactic in infringement suits. Once that threshold is crossed and an issue is framed, the party has three months to act. The legislature has made the consequences of inaction absolutely clear: the plea is deemed abandoned.

The Permanence of Deemed Abandonment

The most critical and consequential aspect of the court's analysis was its holding on what 'deemed abandonment' under Section 111(3) really means. The court categorically held that the abandonment is not limited to the suit. It is a complete and final extinguishment of the right to raise the invalidity plea in any proceeding between those parties. The court explained the reasoning with a concrete illustration: imagine a defendant in an infringement suit raises the plea that the plaintiff's trademark is invalid. An issue is framed, the defendant is given time, but does not move the High Court for rectification within that time. Section 111(3) deems the plea abandoned. The suit proceeds and a decree is passed against the defendant for infringement. If the defendant were then permitted to file a fresh rectification application under Sections 46/56, the result could be that the High Court or IPAB cancels the registration — thereby potentially undermining or nullifying the very decree passed by the civil court. This, the Supreme Court said, would open the door to chaos and anarchy in judicial determinations. It would allow a party to collaterally attack and reopen a decree that has attained finality in law simply by pursuing a remedy it had earlier chosen to abandon. Such a result cannot be what the legislature intended.

The court further reasoned that the deeming fiction in Section 111(3) must be understood as Parliament's deliberate choice to make the consequences of non-compliance with the timeline mandatory and substantive — not merely procedural. The legislature has the power to create legal fictions that alter substantive rights, and that is precisely what Section 111(3) does. There is no contrary provision elsewhere in the 1958 Act that would limit the abandonment's effect only to the suit. Therefore, the right to raise the invalidity issue is lost forever, not just in the suit, between the parties to the litigation.

Addressing the Subsidiary Arguments

The court also addressed the subsidiary arguments raised by the appellants. On the contention that Section 111 requires a subordinate court to give permission to a party before approaching a superior court — which would be contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — the court responded that Section 111 does not contemplate any such 'permission.' The civil court's role under Section 111 is limited to forming a prima facie view on the tenability of the invalidity plea and framing an issue. This is a threshold filtering function, not a permission-granting function. There is a crucial difference between a court screening out frivolous claims and a court granting or refusing leave to approach a higher forum.

On the argument based on Section 32 of the 1958 Act — which provides that after seven years from the date of registration, the registration becomes conclusive as to its validity except in certain enumerated circumstances — the court held that this provision cannot be read to mean that the rectification proceedings under Sections 46/56 on one hand and those under Sections 107/111 on the other can run in parallel. The jurisdiction exercised under Sections 46 and 56 is the very same jurisdiction as that exercised under Sections 107 and 111 — the only difference is the procedural regime that governs the exercise of that jurisdiction in the two different situations (suit pending versus no suit pending). They are not parallel tracks; they are the same track with different entry conditions.

The Conflict Between Earlier High Court Decisions

The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was a conflict between the Delhi High Court's view in Astrazeneca UK Ltd. and Anr. v. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [MANU/DE/8684/2006 : 2006 (32) PTC 733] — which had held that if the civil court does not find a prima facie case for invalidity, the aggrieved party cannot independently approach the IPAB and must instead challenge the civil court's finding in appeal — and the Madras High Court's view in B. Mohamed Yousuff (supra), which held that the right to file a rectification application is a statutory right that cannot be curtailed by the civil court's prima facie assessment. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Data Infosys Limited (supra) had sided with the Madras view and gone further to say that even after deemed abandonment in the suit, the rectification application would be independently maintainable and the IPAB's decision on it would have no bearing on the suit.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court. The court held that their interpretation, while textually possible, produces consequences that would defeat the very purpose of Section 111. If deemed abandonment does not extinguish the right to separately seek rectification, then the entire machinery of Section 111 — with its timelines, its mandatory issue-framing, and its deemed abandonment clause — becomes a hollow procedural exercise with no real teeth. The legislative intent is manifest: the invalidity question must be settled first, once and for all, by the appropriate statutory authority, and the civil court must then decide the suit in conformity with that authority's decision. If the party with the right to challenge validity chooses not to exercise it within the prescribed time, that choice has permanent legal consequences.

Final Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals under consideration and affirmed the orders passed by the High Courts. Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001, which challenged the Gujarat High Court's dismissal of the three rectification applications filed by the appellants, were dismissed. The Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 27309 of 2012, which raised the same issue in a connected matter, was also dismissed. The appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 1851 of 2009, challenging the Delhi High Court's order returning the plaint to Rajkot, was treated as closed since the respondent-plaintiff had voluntarily complied. SLP (C) No. 30121 of 2012 had already been withdrawn.

The court held that the appellants, by operation of Section 111(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, were deemed to have abandoned their plea of invalidity of P.M. Diesels Ltd.'s trademark registrations. Having abandoned that plea, they could not subsequently seek to revive it through independent rectification applications under Sections 46 and 56 of the same Act. The orders of the High Courts dismissing the rectification applications were therefore correct and were upheld.

Points of Law Settled

This judgment settles several important and practically significant points of law in the domain of trademark litigation in India. The first and most fundamental point is that Sections 46 and 56 on one hand and Sections 107 and 111 on the other hand of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 do not operate as parallel, independent remedies. They confer the same substantive jurisdiction to decide the validity of a trademark registration, but the procedural path is different depending on whether an infringement suit is pending or not. When no suit is pending, a person aggrieved may independently invoke Sections 46 and 56. When a suit is pending, the route mandated by Section 111 becomes the exclusive path.

The second point is that the deemed abandonment of the invalidity plea under Section 111(3) of the 1958 Act is not merely a procedural consequence limited to the suit. It is a substantive extinction of the right to challenge the trademark's validity in any proceeding between the same parties. The party that fails to move the High Court for rectification within the time granted by the civil court under Section 111(1)(ii) permanently loses the right to agitate that issue — not just in the suit but also through any separate rectification application under Sections 46 or 56.

The third point is that the civil court's role under Section 111 — forming a prima facie view and framing an issue — is not the granting of permission or leave to approach a higher court. It is a threshold screening mechanism to filter out untenable and frivolous invalidity claims and should not be confused with a permission-granting exercise that would conflict with Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The fourth point is that the question of validity of a registered trademark can never be decided by the civil court itself. It must always be decided by the statutory authority — the Registrar or the High Court under the 1958 Act, or the Registrar or the IPAB under the 1999 Act. The civil court is bound by the decision of that authority.

The fifth point is that this entire ruling applies with equal force to the corresponding provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, namely Sections 47, 57, 124 and 125, which are in pari materia — meaning they are in virtually identical terms — with the relevant provisions of the 1958 Act. The ruling thus governs trademark disputes under the currently applicable legislation as well, making it of direct and continuing relevance.

 

Case Details

Title: Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.

Date of Order: 29th November 2017

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001, Civil Appeal No. 19937 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1851 of 2009), Civil Appeal No. 19938 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27309 of 2012) and SLP (C) No. 30121 of 2012

Neutral Citation: MANU/SC/1509/2017

Court: Supreme Court of India

Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha

 

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

 

Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal

1. Deemed Abandonment of Trademark Invalidity Plea Under Section 111 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act: Supreme Court Settles the Law

2. Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels: Can a Rectification Application Be Filed After Abandonment of Invalidity Plea in Infringement Suit?

3. Section 111 Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958: Abandonment of Invalidity Plea and Its Permanent Legal Consequences

4. Trademark Rectification vs. Infringement Suit in India: When Does Sections 46/56 Right Survive and When Does It Die?

5. Field Marshal Trademark Case: Supreme Court on Interplay Between Sections 46, 56, 107 and 111 of the Trade Marks Act

6. Trademark Invalidity Challenge in India: Parallel Proceedings Under Sections 46/56 and Section 111 — Are They Independent?

7. IPAB Rectification and Civil Suit Infringement: Supreme Court Clarifies the Exclusive Procedure Under Section 124 Trade Marks Act 1999

8. Can a Trademark Infringement Defendant Seek Rectification After Losing in Court? The Supreme Court Answers

 

SEO Tags

Patel Field Marshal Agencies, PM Diesels, trademark rectification India, Section 111 Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, Section 46 trademark removal, Section 56 trademark cancellation, Section 107 rectification application, deemed abandonment invalidity plea, trademark infringement suit India, IPAB rectification, Section 124 Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 47 Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 57 Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 125 Trade Marks Act 1999, trademark validity challenge India, Supreme Court trademark ruling, intellectual property India, trademark registration validity, parallel rectification proceedings, trademark invalidity abandonment, infringement suit and rectification, prima facie tenability trademark, National Bell Co v Metal Goods, Astrazeneca UK Ltd Orchid Chemicals, B Mohamed Yousuff trademark, Data Infosys v Infosys Technologies, person aggrieved trademark India, Field Marshal trademark case, Ranjan Gogoi trademark judgment, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

 

Headnote

Held — The rights conferred by Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (corresponding to Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) and the procedure contemplated by Sections 107 and 111 of the 1958 Act (corresponding to Sections 124 and 125 of the 1999 Act) do not operate as parallel, independent remedies available simultaneously to a party aggrieved by a trademark registration. They confer the same substantive jurisdiction to decide the validity of a trademark registration but operate under two different procedural regimes depending on whether an infringement suit is pending or not. Where no suit is pending, the aggrieved party may approach the Registrar or the High Court independently under Sections 46 and 56. Where a suit for infringement is pending and the issue of invalidity of the trademark registration is raised therein, the procedure under Section 111 becomes the exclusive and mandatory path. The civil court is required to first form a prima facie view of the tenability of the invalidity plea; if found tenable, it frames an issue and grants three months to the concerned party to move the High Court for rectification. Failure to move the High Court within the time allowed results in the issue of invalidity being deemed abandoned under Section 111(3). Such deemed abandonment is not a mere procedural concession confined to the suit — it is a complete and permanent extinguishment of the right to challenge the validity of the trademark registration through any subsequent or separate proceeding under Sections 46 and 56 between the same parties. Any other interpretation would permit a party to collaterally attack decrees that have attained finality, thereby causing uncertainty and anarchy in judicial determinations. The civil court's role of forming a prima facie view under Section 111 is a threshold screening function and does not amount to granting or refusing permission to approach a higher court, and is therefore not contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Data Infosys Limited and Ors. v. Infosys Technologies Limited [MANU/DE/0283/2016 : 2016 (65) PTC 209] and the Madras High Court in B. Mohamed Yousuff v. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh and Ors. [MANU/TN/2924/2006 : (2008) 38 PTC 576], insofar as they held the right to seek rectification to survive independently even after deemed abandonment in the suit, are disapproved. All appeals dismissed.