CM No. 23322/2015 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO 363/2015 and CM No. 23321/2015 (stay) and CM No. 23320/2015 (condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the appeal)

2. There is a delay of 193 days in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 01.12.2014, which has been passed by the trial court, in an application preferred by the respondent / plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, and on an application filed by the appellant / defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC.

2.1 A bare perusal of the application would show that there is no explanation whatsoever for preferring the appeal after a delay of 193 days.

2.2 The only explanation proffered by the appellant / defendant is that the previous counsel did not coordinate with the proprietor of the appellant / defendant, and that, he was informed about the position of the appeal only later.

2.3 The reason is as vague as it can be. The appeal, according to me, is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.

3. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellant /defendant says that while he does not dispute the fact that the trademark (word mark per se) of the parties is similar, his on