^% '••^ '% ^.l^i^l^ |. •i ^ VS Ei"t."'S'a-. :'i.'SK:uS!By^,"l H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.5762 of 2011 Babulal Agrawal, S/o Mansa Ram, aged about 62 years, Proprietor, M/s Vikash Gudakhu Factory Agrasen Marg, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya Distt. Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. Anand Agrawal S/o Late Gajanand, R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya Distt. Raigarh 2. Murlidhar Agrawal, S/o Late Gajanand Agrwal, Dadu Gudakhu Factory, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 3. Harprasad Rathore, S/o Ramratan Rathore, R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 4. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya Distt. Raigarh (CG) 5. M/s Dadu Gudakhu Factory, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya Distt. Raigarh (CG) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. P. Sam Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.P. Sharma with Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 to3. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (27-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 13-9- 2011 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Civil Case No.35/2011, whereby learned Additional District Judge has amended the order dated 2-7-2011 passed by him while granting temporary injunction against the petitioner herein. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused both the orders icopugned, copy of the plaint and copies of other documents. 3. As per the order dated 2-7-2011, the 1 Additional District Judge, Raigarh while granting injunction filed on behalf of the defendants in counter claim has passed the following order: - "cTT^t 'vrsj zrr f^rf aprr ivecm ^ PTRTT ^iu ITSR^ c^ •^S^T c^ W^ IfT 'g^ Rddl ^cRTT ^i[?f cn^T cptqcT T?cf ^RT^ ^Tq ^lsTcT dill<t>'i ''TSTSL cRT '.i^lK'l i?cT f^?I ^€f c^ 3)t? ^ tr f^ift 3^ ^TIHpT ^T ct;^ic)|il" 4. After passing the order at the instance of the respondents, the Court below has passed the order dated 13-9-2011 in which for the word chl^d the word TT'ft?T has been amended under Section 152 of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the pleading i.e. counter claim of the respondents, they have prayed for permanent injunction relating use of label in Gudakhu bearing photograph of any bird similar to parrot, c^rqcf, ^rr, •tidchci or any bird like parrot. At the time offiling application for injunction, the respondents have prayed injunction for using the label in Gudakhu bearing photograph of ^ft?T or any other bird. 6. The order dated 2-7-2011 reveals that the petitioner has been prohibited to use the label bearing photograph of birds like cbl'4<?i or other birds like parrot which has been subsequently amended and instead of the word the word TTT'rt?T has been amended. 7. Counter claimand the order dated 2-7-2011 clearly reveal that the trial Court has granted injunction for use of any label bearing photograph of any bird similar to parrot or the label bearing photograph ofcptqcf similar to parrot (^\^v\ ^ 1^R1^ ^m). Although in the counter claim or in the order impugned, the word Tpft?T has not been mentioned, but admittedly same is included in 'any bird'. 8. In the light of the word bird i.e. the words f^l^ ®Tq, in the order datedZ- 7-2011, thpre was no propriety for amendment of the word ^rit?r instead ofcptq^r which is already included in the counter claim and the injunction application as any bird. 9. In these circumstances, the order dated 13-9-2011 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Civil Case No.35/2011 is ti'ereby quashed with the observation that word bird ^f^\ mentioned in a§pnf BUIJBIS "d'-L -/PS •sisoo 01 se jspjo ON •jo pssodsip spueis uoii^d 941-01 •tojjed 01 jeiitujs pjiq jeilio Aue pue hlfi ^^ SPJOM SL|I ui papnioui /ipe9J|e si KjeOiey 'eBpnr puisia leuoiiippv ,sl 34t Aq passed \.\.OZ-L-Z psiep JspJO 341 '@^L) ELUOS