1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1948 OF 1998 Bajaj Electricals Limited ...Plaintiffs vs. M/s.Khajanchi Electricals Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Defendants Mr.Manish Saurastri with Mr.Utkarsh Tewari i/b. M/s.Shantilal & Co. for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JANUARY 15, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the plaintiffs. None appears on behalf of the defendants though they are served. The plaintiffs have filed affidavit of service. No written statement has been filed by the defendants. The matter was, therefore, transferred under the caption of Undefended Suits . The plaintiffs have filed affidavit of evidence and 2 compilation of original documents. The averments made in the plaint are not controverted by the defendants since no written statement has been filed. The averments, therefore, are deemed to be admitted. The plaintiffs have also filed list of documents. The defendants have not denied these documents in view of affidavit in lieu of evidence of the Company Secretary of the plaintiffs herein. 2 The plaintiffs are carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing various types of fans and other electrical geysers. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants have been using the registered trade mark REGAL which belongs to the plaintiffs herein. According to the plaintiffs, they have spent huge amount for the promotion of the trade mark by giving it wide publicity sometime on or about March 1992. The plaintiffs have given particulars of the sales figures and the expenses incurred for the promotion of the trade mark. The plaintiffs have also produced 3 copies of the registration certificate and legal certificate of the trade mark. The plaintiffs, therefore, clearly have established their claim in view of the documents which are produced on record. The plaintiffs have also established that the defendants have sold their goods with the impugned trade mark by selling the goods in Mumbai. This Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to grant suit. Leave is filed under Clause 12. Suit is filed within limitation. The plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled for a judgment and decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). 3 Though affidavit in lieu of evidence and the affidavit of documents have been tendered by the plaintiffs herein, in my view, in view of the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 10, if written statement is not filed, the Court is entitled to pass a judgment and decree in view of the amended provisions. Rule 10 of Order VIII reads as under :- 4 Order VIII  Rule 10  Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court  Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. 4 Thus, even otherwise, in my view, once the Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a case on the basis of the avermens made in the plaint, also a judgment can be delivered by this Court. 5 Suit, accordingly, is decreed and disposed of. 6 Certified copy expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.)