FAO No. 2872 of 2000 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on March 05,2010. M/S.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd --Appellant Vs. M/S.Vets Farma Ltd -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Sunil Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.I.K.Mehta,Sr.Advocate,with Mr.M.S.Kohli,Advocate, for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against order dated 21.11.2000 passed by learned Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar, on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in veterinary medicines and feed supplements for livestock and poultry under the marks GA LFOS AD 3 PLUS, CALFOS AD 3 Plus and ANIMIN and or any other mark with or without any prefix or suffix added thereto and as may be identical or deceptively similar to the applicants registered Trade Mark's Nos. 413364, 493592 and 527127 which would amount to infringement thereof. Whole case of the plaintiff is based upon three assignments having been executed by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff FAO No. 2872 of 2000 (O&M) 2 which has been duly referred by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Question involved in this case is as to whether Trade Marks have been assigned or not. The trial Court dismissed the application for injunction. At the time of notice of motion on 18.12.2000, following order was passed:- “ Notice of motion for 5.3.2001. Till further orders, the respondent-company is restrained from using the Trade Marks CALFOS- AD-3 Plus, GALFOS AD3- Plus and ANIMIN or using Trade Mark similar or deceptively similar thereto”. The learned trial Court dismissed the application basically on the ground that the matter in respect of the aforesaid Trade Marks is sub judice before the Delhi High Court. This Court vide order dated 2.9.2002 passed the following order:- “Mr.Arun Jain,Advocate. Mr.I.K.Mehta,Sr.Advocate,with Ms.Ranjit Mehta,Advocate. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the appeal may be heard after the decision if rendered by the Delhi High Court in a case which is pending between the parties. Adjourned sine die. As and when the decision is rendered by the due date, an application be filed for listing the appeal for hearing”. This appeal remained pending as “adjourned sine die” till an application was filed by the respondent i.e. C.M. No.12896-CII of 2007 which was disposed of on 2.8.2007 with the following order:- FAO No. 2872 of 2000 (O&M) 3 “ Shri.K.K.Mehta,Advocate,for the applicant. This case was adjourned sine die on September 02,2002 on the ground that the matter is pending adjudication in the Delhi High Court between the parties and that this case would be taken up after the decision by the Delhi High Court. Now the present Civil Misc. application has been moved by the counsel for the petitioner to fix an actual date of hearing since the case has already been disposed of by Delhi High Court. Notice of the Civil Misc.application to the counsel opposite for October 30,2007”. The aforesaid application was allowed by this Court on 10.11.2008 and the case was ordered to be fixed for actual hearing on 9.12.2008. Since then it is being adjourned under one pretext or the other and in this process, almost a period of a decade has passed. It is pertinent to mention here that on 9.5.2001, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed in CM Nos. 5491 and 5492-CII of 2001:- “Notice of C.M. For 30.7.2001. Records also”. On 17.9.2001, following order was passed:- Records received. Adjourned to 7.11.2001 on request”. Thus, since 2001, record of the trial Court is lying in this Court and naturally proceedings in the suit have been stalled. After a lengthy arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, they are ad-idem that instead of deciding this appeal on merits, this case be remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to decide it FAO No. 2872 of 2000 (O&M) 4 in a stipulated period. It is also agreed that till the suit is decided, order passed by this court at the time of notice of motion shall be maintained. In view of the aforesaid understanding reached between the parties in the Court, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court which is seized of the matter to decide the suit expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, order passed at the time of notice of motion on 18.12.2000 shall remain operative up to the date of decision of the suit. March 05,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge