VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. This is a composite appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the order dated 27.08.2013 (hereinafter referred as the 'second impugned order') passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC being I.A. No.13434/2013 which in turn was filed in CS(OS) No.1588/2013. The appellant also challenges the order dated 27.08.2013 rejecting the Review Petition, being R.P. No.424/2013 filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the CPC, seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.12818/2013. The learned Single Judge has, by the second impugned order, directed issuance of notice to the respondent in I.A.13434/2013, thereby not granting the prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining publication and telecast of the printed and television commercial respectively, which are alleged to disparage the products, goodwill and reputation of the appellants. The present appeal also impugns the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.12818/2013 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’), whereby the said application for grant of interim injunction was dismissed by holding that the said advertisements in question did not disparage or denigrate the product of the appellants/plaintiffs.

2. The controversy in the present case relates to an advertisement campaign pursued by the respondent/defendant to advertise its product - a Toothpaste which is sold as “Pepsodent Germicheck Super Power” (hereinafter referred to as “Pepsodent GSP”). The advertisement campaign includes a television commercial as well as advertisements in the print media. An advertisement in the print media appeared in the front page of the newspaper “Hindustan Times”, New Delhi edition on 11.08.2013. The said advertisement in print media has also appeared in several national dailies, including in modified forms. The commercial on television has also been repeated on several occasions. Both the Television commercial as well as the advertisements in the print media seeks to convey that Pepsodent GSP is 130% better than the product of the appellant namely “Colgate Dental Cream Strong Teeth” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Colgate ST’). The Television commercial is hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned TVC’ and the advertisement that was published in Hindustan Times on 11.08.2013 is hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned print advertisement’. The said advertisements are collectively referred as the ‘impugned advertisements’.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit CS(OS) No.1588/2013, inter-alia, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from publishing and/or telecasting the impugned advertisements or any other similar advertisement or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs and their products sold under the trade mark 'COLGATE'. The appellants/plaintiffs also filed an application (I.A. No.12818/2013 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC) along with the suit for granting ad-interim injunction against the impugned advertisements and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.08.2013.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal (FAO(OS) No.381/2013) before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 and the Division Bench of this Court, on 23.08.2013, permitted the appellants/plaintiffs to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh application for injunction before the learned Single Judge and place on record such new material to establish that the impugned advertisements were disparaging the products of the plaintiffs. The relevant extract of the order dated 23.08.2013 is quoted as under:-

“During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellants stated that new material in the form of