1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 93 OF 2007 (Ramani Icecream Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Taap Choice Foods (P) Ltd.) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1561 OF 2008 (Taap Choice Foods (P) Ltd. vs. Ramani Icecream Co. (P) Ltd.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 20, 2008. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant – original plaintiff in A.O. No. 93 of 2007 as also Shri S.V. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent - original defendant in above A.O. for quite some time yesterday. After hearing both the learned counsel, it transpired that the order impugned in Appeal against order is dated 2.8.2007 i.e. more than one year old and the situation has not changed thereafter. Civil Suit No. 3 of 2007 filed by the appellant under Trade Marks Act, is pending on the file of Ad-hoc District Judge- 4 at Nagpur. Civil Application No.1561 of 2008 is filed by the respondent in A.O. No. 93 of 2007 for condoning delay of 43 days in filing appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. challenging the very 2 same order which forms subject matter of A.O. No. 93 of 2007. The operative part of the impugned order is as under : i) “Application is allowed in the following terms. ii)Defendant is hereby restrained from using his own logo on the products of plaintiff. iii)Defendant is however allowed to manufacture the ice cream under the logo of plaintiff until orders under the strict supervision of plaintiff and in terms of the provisions of standards of Weights and Measurement Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. iv)Defendant to submit details account of production and sale of goods. v)In the circumstances of the case the matter is expedited.” Shri Mirza, learned counsel had pointed out that original defendant has filed Special Civil Suit No. 289 of 2007 for damages against the present appellant and the same is also pending before the very same Court in which Civil Suit No. 3 of 2007 is pending. In the circumstances, it was felt that considering the nature of controversy and claims made, hearing of both suits should be expedited and 3 both suits should be decided together as they are pending before the very same Court. Both the learned counsel today sought time to consult their respective clients and accordingly as per instructions received today they make a statement that suits should be directed to be decided as early as possible and in the meanwhile status quo as on today to be continued. In the circumstances, Civil Suit No. 3 of 2007 and Special Civil Suit No. 289 of 2007 are expedited and the concerned Court is directed to decide the proceedings together as early as possible and shall endeavour to decide the same within one year from the date of communication of this order to it. Till then, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. In view of these orders, no further orders need to be passed in A.O. No. 93 of 2007 as also in C.A. No.1561 of 2008. Both the proceedings are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.