Civil Revision No. 1037 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1037 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.03.2009. Anil Sabharwal and others ...Petitioners Versus Arun Sabharwal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailbya Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court noticed more than one reason which weighed with it for non suiting the plaintiffs-petitioners in the matter of ad-interim stay plea. As against it, the learned Ist Appellate Court did not, at all, deal with the above facts before invalidating the view obtained by the learned Trial Court. Though on the factual front, the judgment of the learned Ist Appellate Court runs into eighteen paras. The first thirteen paras pertain to the quotation of pleadings and the pleas raised in the course of the presentation. Para thirteen only indicates that the order will have no effect on the merits of the main case. Para 16 contains a direction to the parties to appear before the Trial Court on the indicated date. Para sixteen Civil Revision No. 1037 of 2008 -2- **** contains the factum of allowance of the appeal and the restraint order granted by the learned Ist Appellate Court. It is only paras 14 and 15 which were devoted to the 'discussion' recorded by the learned Ist Appellate Court. Those paras are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “14. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no force. The memorandum of understanding/family settlement prima-facie shows that there is a clause VI which is as under:- “That the trade mark registered in the name of company shall henceforth shall be enjoyed equally by both the groups and ownership shall also belong equally both the groups. The parties agree not to sale/lease/transfer such trade mark to many person without the prior written consent of all the parties and with unanimous consent only. 15. As per provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 there can be assignment of the trade mark. So the above referred clause prima facie shows that the appellants/plaintiffs have prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour and they will suffer irreparable loss if the temporary injunction is not granted to them.” Civil Revision No. 1037 of 2008 -3- **** In the circumstances of the case, it is deemed just and appropriate to require the disposal of the Ist appeal afresh. The learned Ist Appellate Court shall notice the foundational premise of the view obtained by the learned Trial Court and then proceed to pass whatever order it deems fit on the merits of the case. The matter shall be listed before the learned District Judge, Patiala on 30.3.2009. The learned District Judge, Patiala shall retain this file on his own Board, re-hear the parties and dispose of the appeal afresh within seven days from 30.3.2009. The parties, through their learned Counsel, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Patiala, on 30.3.2009. Disposed of accordingly. March 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge