( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 39 Rule 2a read with Section 151 CPC. The application has been filed alleging that after the injunction order passed by this Court on 17. 3. 1989 the defendants in violation of the injunction order sold one lock to one Syed Iqbal Muneer in the presence of Notary Public. The injunction order dated 17. 3. 1989 reads as under :-

". . . . . I am satisfied from what has been stated in the plaint and in IA 2226 of 1989 which is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. for restraining the defendants from using the linearly slidable lock covered by Indian Patent No. 16130, that an order, injuncting the defendants, their servants and agents from infringing Patent No. 161330, relatable to linearly slidable lock, should be passed, which injunction is hereby issued till the next date of hearing.

COUNSEL for the defendants who has filed a caveat, says that he will file reply within one week.

CASE for 29th March, 1989. "

( 2 ) MR. MUNJAL, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that after the injunction order was passed defendant had willfully disobeyed the order of this Court and manufactured the disputed lock and sold it in the market for which the plaintiff is a patent holder. He has argued that a dealer from Ghaziabad who has been a customer of the plaintiff went on 29. 8. 1989 to the premises of the defendant. Again on 9. 9. 1989 the said Syed Iqbal Muneer with a Notary went to the premises and met one of the partners of the defendant and at that time purchased one lock for Rs. 13. 00 , the lock has been filed in a sealed cover in this Court. There is a report of the Notary also supporting the version of the Syed Iqbal Muneer that the partner of the defendant had sold the lock on 9. 9. 1989 for Rs. 13. 00. On the basis of this report, according to the plaintiff, defendant has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and he should be punished for contempt.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the report of the Notary has to be ignored as it was not the statutory function of a Notary as contemplated under Section 8 of the Notary Act to go at the spot and give a certificate or report in this regard. He has further contended that in paragraph 4 of the reply to the aforesaid application the defendant had specifically averred that defendant was a manufacturer and wholesale dealer and was selling the locks in specific locality of Nabi Karim and Sadar Bazar on whose sale basis. The plaintiff in its rejoinder has not controverted this aspect of the stand of the defendant and, therefore, according to Mr. Rohtagi it does not lie to any reason as to why a single lock was sold by the defendant to said Syed Iqbal Muneer. The stand of the defendant is that Syed Iqbal Muneer did not come on 29th August, 1989 but he did come on 9th September, 1989. It is denied in the reply that any lock was purchased by said Syed Iqbal Muneer. As a matter of fact, according to the defendant Syed Iqbal Muneer came and brought a 15" lock with him and asked the defendants if they could manufacture such like lock and the defendant informed that as there is an injunction order against manufacturing of the kind of lock which said Syed Iqbal Muneer wanted to have manufactured from the defendant, the defendant could not manufacture the same and defendant handed over the visiting card of defendant s firm so that future contacts could be maintained with him. Mr. Rohtagi has also contended that even otherwise there is no finality to the patent as put up by the plaintiff. I need not go to that argument at this stage of the matter. Another contention of Mr. Rohtagi is that there is no patent in the lock and at best on the basis of suggestion of plaintiff he had put the spring in the lock from front to back and at best it could be described as workshop improvement and nothing more. As I have stated earlier these are not the questions which