( 1 ) THE matter is appearing under the caption 'interlocutory'.

( 2 ) SRI K. Hema Prakash Rao, learned Counsel representing the plaintiff having lodged a Caveat entered appearance and opposed the granting of any interim order in this civil miscellaneous appeal. Mrs. A. Sarala, learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant made elaborate submissions and both the Counsel on record made a request for the final disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal itself and hence this Court is disposing of the civil miscellaneous appeal itself finally.

( 3 ) MRS. Sarala, learned Counsel representing the appellant-respondent-defendant would submit that the relationship between the parties is not in controversy and the fact that the respondent obtained the registration of the trade mark without putting the other family members on notice also is not in serious controversy. The learned Counsel would submit that the label popularly known as 'adepu 222 and adepu 555' are of the joint family and the joint family has been utilising the same and when that being so when the same is not shown even in the partition between the family members, merely because respondent-plaintiff had obtained the registration of the trade mark just recently in deceitful manner without putting the other family members on notice, preventing the appellant from using the trade mark by virtue of a restraint order, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the contents of the affidavit filed by the father in support of the stand taken by the appellant. At any rate, the Counsel would submit that when these are the matters to be gone into at the time of final disposal of the suit and when strong prima facie case was not made out by the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff, granting of temporary injunction is not just and proper. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the relevant statutory provisions under the Trade Marks act, 1999. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Hema Prakash rao, learned Counsel representing the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff would maintain that the documentary evidence placed before the Court commencing from Exs. A3 to A22 would go to show that even prior to the alleged partition, for sufficiently a long time, the plaintiff has been doing the textile business separately. The learned Counsel also would submit that the fact that the certificate of Registration of Trade Mark dated 29. 9. 2004, marked as Ex. A2, had been obtained is not in serious controversy. When that being so, the learned Counsel would submit that even if it is to be taken that there is some violation or contravention of section 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the procedure available to the appellant is elsewhere i. e. , within the framework of the trade Marks Act, 1999. The Counsel also would maintain that unless and until the certificate of Registration of Trade Mark is cancelled, revoked, varied, modified or in anyway annulled by the competent authorities specified under the Act aforesaid, till then the appellant has no right to question the same. The Counsel also further would maintain that an application was moved to cross-examine the father in the light of the affidavit said to have been given by the father and the Counsel would submit that the said application is pending disposal. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District judge, Karimnagar, and also would submit that the pleadings of the respective parties being complete, at this stage it may not be just and proper to disturb a well-considered order of this nature and instead the suit itself can be finally disposed of. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions and further had pointed out to the relevant provisions under Sections 14 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

( 5 ) HEARD both the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document