IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 FAO.No. 30 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/11/2006 IN IA.1268/06 IN OS.2/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------- A.V. JOHN, PROPRIETOR, UNITED POLYMERS, OPP. AMALA CANCER HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------ `PERIYAR' PREMIUM DURO TECH STORAGE WATER TANKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.M.PAULY, TWO-IN-ONE STORAGE EXTRUSIONS, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR ` SRI.VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.286/07 IN FAO.NO.30/2007 -------------------- DISMSSED 5/8/2010 Sd/- Harun-Ul-Rashid, Judge. True Copy HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ F.A.O.NO.30 OF 2007 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.2/2006 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd day of November, 2006 in I.A.No.1268/06, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction. The court below, after considering the application on merits, took the view that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for getting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using his registered trade mark during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the application for injunction was dismissed. 2. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, this Court suggested to both the counsel that the suit can be disposed of at an early date without going into the merits of the -2- F.A.O.NO.30/2007 appeal. Since the suit is of the year 2006, this Court suggested that the trial itself can be proceeded with and the suit itself can be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This was acceptable to the counsel appearing for both sides. 3. The Apex Court in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala (2009(10) SCC 257) held as follows: “In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.” 4. Following the same dictum, the Apex Court in Bajaj Auto Limited v. TVS Motor Company Limited (2009(9) SCC 797) directed the trial court to dispose of the suit at the earliest opportunity. Without going into the merits of the controversy, this Court directs the court below to hear and -3- F.A.O.NO.30/2007 dispose of the case, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by any of the observations and findings made in the impugned order. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.