RAJIV SINGH Vs. MANOJ KANTI SENSARMA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction in passing off suit was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being FMAT 1049 of 2016. This Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. However, leave was granted to the defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction within two weeks after reopening of the court after Puja Vacation. Leave was also granted to the plaintiff to file reply, if any, to the said affidavit within a week thereafter. This Court requested the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction by middle of December, 2016 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. The learned Trial Judge was also directed to dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction according to his own wisdom and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by this Court while disposing of the said first miscellaneous appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff was not satisfied with the said order. He moved a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the said order passed by this Court in the aforesaid first miscellaneous appeal. The said Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. (C) No. 805/2017 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23rd January, 2017. The order which was impugned in the said Special Leave Petition was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order :-

(3.) Pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties went back to the learned Trial Court on 8th February, 2017, though they are now trying to point out before this Court that 8th February, 2017 was not the date fixed for hearing of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. It is submitted by Mr. Bachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on instruction from his learned advocate-on-record Mr. Anindya Lahiri that temporary injunction matter was fixed for haring before the learned Trial Court on a subsequent date.