( 1 ) IN the suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trading style to read as PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES as well as PATEL FIELD MARSHAL INDUSTRIES containing the whole trade mark FIELD MARSHAL of the plaintiff for marketing their goods of the same kind and description as those of the plaintiffs and for rendition of accounts of profit earned by the defendants, the plaintiff by this IA seeks to restrain the defendant from using logo PFMA and PFMI which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and from using and/or trading under the name and style to read as "patel FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES" and "patel FIELD MARSHAL INDUSTRIES" pending hearing and disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) BY order dated 30. 6. 1989, the defendants have been restrained from adopting the plaintiff s registered trade mark "field MARSHAL" as the trading mark for their proposed company. The defendant filed rely t6 the IA and resisted the claim of the plaintiff for the grant of ad interim injunction.

( 3 ) I would like to deal with two submissions advanced by the defendant, the acceptance, if any, of any one, pale the merits of the case, into in significance.

( 4 ) ONE of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant is that the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction in respect of relief (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) is fixed at Rs. 200. 00 each and court fee of Rs. 20. 00 on each relief, is paid thereon; that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee in respect of relief (vi) is fixed at Rs. 200. 00 and court fee of Rs. 200. 00 paid. Value for the purpose of jurisdiction under this relief is fixed at Rs. 5,01,000. 00. It is further contended by Mr. Makhija, counsel for the defendant, that the valuation can be RS. 1000. 00 only not more or less and that this High Court will not have jurisdiction on its original side to try and entertain this suit but the jurisdiction would be with the District Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the decision rendered in S. No. 1294/94 and S. No. 730/94 by the learned Single Judge of this court, to which, I will come a little later. The submission in this regard by Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for the plaintiff, is, that in view of the order dated 23. 9. 93 in IAs 1145-46/92, the suit valuation in the plaint will not come in the way of the plaintiff inthis IA and that the question of valuation is conclusively decided.

( 5 ) IN the suit, the plaintiff has been alleging the infringement by the defendant of the plaintiff s registered trade mark "field MARSHAL" used for the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting of diesel oil engine and parts thereof, centrifugal pumps and electric motors and parts thereof, etc. In relief (i), the plaintiff has been seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiffs logo PFMA and PFMI and MARSHAL or using any other trademark, identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark FIELD MARSHAL. In relief (ii), the plaintiff seeks perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using the trading style to read as PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES as well as PATEL FIELD MARSHAL INDUSTRIES containing the whole trade mark FIELD MARSHAL of the plaintiff for marketting their goods of the same kind and description as those of the plaintiffs. Relief (iii) is for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their goods of the same kind and description, as those of the plaintiffs, under the trade mark and logo PFMA and PFMI and MARSHAL and FIELD MARSHAL and/or under any other trade mark which may be identical and/or deceplively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark FIELD MARSHAL. Relief (iv) and (v) which are for perpetual injunction and for delivery of the dies, blocks, lables, cartons, stickers, etc. and other material and relief (vi) is for rendition of accounts of profits earned by