GUNJAN SHARMA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally at the admission stage. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners -appellants -defendants challenging the order dt. 04.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") and the order dt. 08.05.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court).

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents No. 3 to 5, original -plaintiffs have filed the suit before the trial Court seeking the permanent injunction against the petitioners -defendants for restraining the defendants from using the name of Royal Cricket Club or posing themselves as the office bearers of the said club or organizing any cricket competition. The respondents -plaintiffs also filed an application seeking temporary injunction of similar nature under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, which was granted by the trial Court vide order dt. 04.02.2012 and the petitioners -defendants were restrained from using the name of Royal Cricket Club during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the trial Court the petitioners had preferred the appeal bearing No. 18/2012 before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide order dt. 08.05.2012. Hence being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioners has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari appearing for the respondents -plaintiffs has submitted that both the Courts below having concurrently found prima facie case in their favour, this Court exercising limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the impugned orders. However, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the Royal Cricket Club, and that necessary application for amendment would be made in the suit, if so advised.