I.A. 4344/2015 (by the defendant u/O IX R 13 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant praying inter alia for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013.

2. Before referring to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for defendant, it is considered necessary to narrate the sequence of dates and events that had led to the passing of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013.

3. The Plaintiff company, Satya Infrastructure Ltd. which is in the business of real estate and has built a large number of commercial and residential complexes all over India, has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, for restraining the defendant, “Satya Builders (P) Ltd.” from infringement of its registered trademark, “Satya” which also appears to be its housemark since the year 1986.

4. As per the records, summons were issued in the suit on 28.2.2011, returnable on 12.8.2011. On the same date, an exparte ad-interim injunction order was passed restraining the defendant from using the mark “Satya” or any other trademark/trading name containing the trademark “Satya” or any of the composite marks of the plaintiff containing the mark, “Satya”, which would amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. The defendant/company had entered appearance in the suit through Mr. Rajat Sharma, its Director on 05.10.2011. On the said date, the parties had stated that the case had been amicably settled between them and a compromise application shall be moved in due course. It was further requested that the case be placed before the Court for the parties to make appropriate submissions in that regard. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the representative of the defendant company, the case was directed to be placed before the court on 01.12.2011.

5. On 01.12.2011, none had appeared for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff had informed the court that the case had been amicably settled between the parties, and he would be moving an application for seeking withdrawal of the suit. At the request of the learned counsel for plaintiff, the matter was first adjourned to 9.12.2011 and then to 15.12.2011.

6. In the meantime, on 09.12.2011, the parties had filed a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC registered as I.A. 20182/2011. The said application was listed before the Court on 15.12.2011 and on the said date, though the plaintiffs were duly represented, none had appeared on behalf of defendant. As a result the said application was adjourned to 20.12.2011.

7. On 20.12.2011, counsel for plaintiff had sought leave to withdraw the compromise application, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn and the case was adjourned to 16.1.2012, for a settlement. Pertinently, even on 20.12.2011 none had appeared for the defendant. On 16.1.2012, counsel for the plaintiff had stated that the draft compromise application had been forwarded to the defendant and she had sought two weeks time to file the same. At request, the case was adjourned to 18.4.2012. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on three occasions to enable the parties to file the compromise application but no such application came to be filed. Pertinently, in all this duration, none had appeared for the defendant.

8. On 25.9.2012, having regard to the fact that the defendant had stopped appearing after being served with the summons in the suit, it was proceeded against ex-parte and the case was directed to be placed before learned Joint Registrar for recording the plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence. The plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence had concluded on 08.2.2013 and the suit was placed before the Court on 18.4.2013. Finally, on 30.4.2013, the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the prayers made in para 28 (i) & (ii) of the plaint and further, in view of the fact that the defendant had deliberately stayed away from the present proceedings after having entered appe