' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 7- 12-1988 of Lahore High Court at Lahore, whereby F.A.O. No,3 of 1988 is allowed and order impugned therein is set aside.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent herein namely Sheikh Soap Factory applied for registration of mark comprising Robin with device of Robin in circle.
Appellants filed opposition and resisted. During the proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks, compromise was arrived at between the two parties and in consequence amendment was sought by substitution of label featuring the word "URBAN" with device of bird in cage limited to colours red, blue and white in place of label filed previously. In the result on behalf of the appellants opposition was withdrawn. On 29-12-1985 appellants filed application for rectification of respondent's registered trade mark on the ground that it was with device of bird on the branch of the tree resembling with their registered trade marks and was not in accordance with the agreement on the label featuring word URBAN and the device of bird in a cage limited to colours red, blue and white in consequence of which the opposition was withdrawn. Respondent was heard by the Registrar and relying upon material produced before him by the parties he expunged trade mark of respondent.
3. Against the order of expungment/rectification passed by the Registrar, appeal was filed before Lahore High Court which is finally allowed as stated above. Before us on behalf of the appellants two contentions were raised. Firstly, that Registrar, Trade Marks was not made a party and notice was not issued to him in the High Court and, therefore, proceedings suffered from legal infirmity.
Secondly, that Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction to hear appeal for the reason that Registrar, Trade Marks sat at Karachi and proceedings in question took place at Karachi, hence High Court of Sindh at Karachi had jurisdiction.
4. In the paper book copy of memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court is not included.
Our attention has been drawn to the copy of the judgment of the High Court in appeal which shows that apart from M/s. Reckitt & Colman, there was one other respondent as well, which could not be any other party except Registrar, Trade Marks. Learned counsel for the respondent before us has shown us the record naming Registrar as a party for service. Learned counsel for the appellants before 'us has drawn our attention to Rule 5 of Order V in Chapter XVII of High Court Orders which shows that even if Registrar is not made a party the Court has to issue notice to him.
5. We are more impressed about the second contention raised on behalf of the appellants to the effect that Lahore High Court has no jurisdiction on the ground that Registrar's office is at Karachi and proceedings were taken before him at Karachi, hence High Court of Sindh at Karachi had jurisdiction. In this context section 76 of Trade Marks Act of 1940 contemplates that appeal from the decision of the Registrar shall lie to the High Court having jurisdiction. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Abdul Ghani Ahmed v. Registrar, Trade Marks, Government of India reported in AIR 1947 Lahore 171, in which person residing in Lahore made an application for registration of trade mark to Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay which was refused and he filed appeal before the Lahore High Court. It was held that Bombay High Court had jurisdiction and not Lahore High Court for the reason that mere residence of a petitioner would not in the absence of statutory provision invest a Court with jurisdiction as there is no provision of this kind either in the Trade Marks Act or in any other Act in respect of appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. As against this learned counsel for the respondents argued before us that Registrar Trade Marks has jurisdiction all over Pakistan and also he has an office set up in Lahore, therefore, High Court at Lahore also had jurisdiction. When asked categorically whether proceedings in respect of trade mark were held at Karachi or at Lahore, the reply was that proceedings took place at Karachi and order passed by the Registrar and impugned in the appeal was also passed at Karachi. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents cited before us the case of Al-Iblagh Limited v. Copyright Board, Karachi and others 1985 SCM R 758. It is held in the reported case that any order passed by the Board or proceedings taken by it in relation to any person in any of the four Provinces in Pakistan gives jurisdiction to the High Court of the Provinces in whose territory such person resides. Reported case is distinguishable for the reason that language used in section 77 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 pertaining to appeals against the order of the Board is worded differently from section 76 of the Trade Marks Act of 1940 inasmuch as in section 77 of the Copyright Ordinance it is specifically mentioned that appeal would lie to the High Court within whose jurisdiction appellant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. We, therefore, approve the view expressed in the case of Abdul Ghani Ahmed (supra) and hold that in the instant case appeal was competent before High Court of Sindh at Karachi, as order of the Registrar, Trade Marks impugned in the appeal was passed at Karachi and proceedings also took place at Karachi.
6. For facts and reasons stated above, we allow this appeal on the question of jurisdiction with no order as to costs. Judgment passed by Lahore High Court impugned before us is set aside. It is open to the respondents to file appeal before High Court of Sindh at Karachi. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.