Shri Birender Singh and Others vs Godfrey Phillips India Limited and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This order of mine will dispose of Civil Revision No.3391, 3392, 3593, 3594 of 1991 and 676 of 1992.

Defendants (respondents herein) are manufacturers of various brands of cigarettes. Plaintiffs (Petitioners herein) filed civil suit in representative capacity for restraining the defendants from using different marks on cigarettes packets, carton or advertise the same in any manner whatsoever by themselves or by their Dealers, servants or associates. It was claimed in the suit that these marks were got registered by playing fraud/deceit and by creating confusion as these marks were originally registered in England and belong to English Companies. Along with the suit they also made applications for grant of ad-interim injunction. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted by the trial Court and notice was also issued to the defendants. Defendants preferred appeal before the District Judge who allowed the appeal and vacated ex parte ad-interim injunction order. The order of the District Judge is being impugned in Civil Revision No. 3391 of 1991. After the decision of the appeal, a review petition was filed before the District Judge for the review of the order but the District Judge declined to review his order. Civil Revision No. 3392 of 1991 has been preferred against the order dismissing the application for review. Another suit was filed at Gurgaon in which similar ex parte ad-interim order was passed by the trial Court but on appeal, the same was vacated by the District Judge against which Civil Revision No. 3593 of 1991 has been preferred. In another suit, trial Court granted ex parte ad-interim injunction order and appeal was preferred which was entertained by the District Judge but operation of ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court was stayed. That order of the District Judge was challenged in this Court in Civil Revision No.507 of 1991 which was allowed and a direction was issued to the District Judge to decide the appeal expeditiously. The District Judge, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, has decided the appeal and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court. Against that order Civil Revision No. 676 of 1992 has been preferred.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the first Appellate Court.

Respondents have been carrying on their business for a considerable period and therefore granting of an injunction would result in closing down their business. This course normally should not be adopted but the Court unless there are compelling circumstances for granting ad-interim injunction. Mr. Sibal has not been able to point out any such circumstance which would persuade me to take any other view than the one taken by the District Judge. The plea of fraud/deceit is yet to be established by the plaintiffs to send the record well before the plaintiffs and till the same is determined, plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction as prayed for by them in their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the said Code.

Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs stated that the respondents have not filed their written statement in answer to the plaint and thus are delaying the decision of the suit. Mr. Sarin, in answer to this, has stated that in the civil suit pending at Faridabad, written statement has already been filed whereas in the other suits, written statements will positively be filed within 45 days from today. In view of this statement of Mr. Sarin, no further direction is required to be given. Trial Court, after the receipt of the written statements, shall make every endeavour to decide the suits ex-peditiously preferably within one year from today. If any application under the CPC filed by the petitioners or respondents is pending or filed, the same shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.

Any observation made here or by the District Judge while deciding the application for grant of ad-interim injunction shall not be taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of deciding the suits on merits. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-1-1993. Registry is directed to send the record well before the date fixed. No costs.