GEORGE LILINGTON AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications were filed by the defendant after decree was passed in suit on 9th September, 1985. In the suit, the plaint if, prayed :-

(2.) Decree was granted to the plaintiff, as per prayer made in para 23(a) to (e) of the plaint. For rendition of accounts a Local Commissioner was appointed by order made on 9th September, 85 with a direction "to go into the accounts of the defendant in respect of any sale of cement paint under the trade mark SNOWCEM for the last three years.'' Before the Local Commissioner, controversy arose between the parties with rerd to statement of accounts directed to be furnished by the defendant.

(3.) The plaintiff wanted the Local Commissioner to examine books of account and record for sale of all cement paint by the defendant during three years preceding the suit on the plea that the defendant did not indicate trade mark used by him in sale vouchers, cash memos, their other accounts,and, that the entire" sale of cement paint by defendant was actually under trade mark SHOWCEM/SNOWCEM. The defendant produced his bill book,cash book, and ledger for the period October, 81 to October 84, before the Local Commissioner on 5-4-86. Counsel for defendant had no objection to the Local Commissioner examining those books and permitting the plaintiff to take notes from portions where trade mark SHOWCEM/SNOWCEM was mentioned. On 5th April, 86 the Local Commissoner examined some of the books and adjourned further proceedings to 17th September, 1986. Plaintiff wanted hooks produced by defendant to be kept by Local Commissioner, but the Local Commissioner directed them to be produced again at the next hearing.