BIRENDER SINGH Vs. GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Civil Revision No. 3391, 3392, 3593, 3594 of 1991 and 676 of 1992.

(2.) 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.

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