MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By way of this order I propose to decide the abovementioned contempt petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs which is pending for the last more than 2 years.

2. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from infringing and passing off trademark JIVA, which suit is pending adjudication along with the plaint. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Section XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the suit, seeking the following interim reliefs:

“(i) Pass an order restraining the defendants, their Chairman, Directors, Managers, Officers, Agents as also their hotels, resorts and other entities or anyone else connected with the defendants directly or indirectly from adopting and/ or using the trade mark “JIVA” or any other identical or deceptively similar or confusing trade name and/ or trademark “JIVA” in relation to any of their goods and services and the defendants be further restrained from manufacturing, producing or rendering or offering for sale and/or advertising, marketing etc. any goods or services under, the trade name and/or trademark “JIVA” and the defendants be further restrained from passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.”

3. The single Judge vide an ex parte interim order dated 17th October, 2006 (passed in Interim Application being IA. No. 11610/2006 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC), restrained Indian Hotels Company Ltd. (defendant No. 1 in the main suit and respondent No. 7 in the Contempt Petition) from adopting and/or using the trademark ‘JIVA’ or any other identical or deceptively similar or confusing trademark and/or trademark ‘JIVA’ in relation to any of their goods and services from directly or indirectly adopting and/or using the same. The defendants were further restrained from manufacturing, producing or rendering or offering for sale and/or advertising, marketing any goods or services under the trade name and/or trademark ‘JIVA.’

4. The respondent No. 7 being aggrieved by the ex-parte order assailed the same before the Division Bench of this Court in an Appeal being FAO (OS) No. 44/2007.

5. The Division Bench of this Court after detailed arguments modified the order dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the Single Judge, The relevant portion of the order dated 30th May, 2008 is reproduced herein below:

“46. In the result, we allow this appeal in part and to the following extent:

(a) Order dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent the same restrains the appellant from using the trademark “JIVA” for its spas run in the hotels established by it shall stand vacated, subject to the appellant filing an undertaking to the effects that (i) it shall maintain true and correct accounts of its income and expenditure relating to the business of the said spas and file the same in this court every six months and (ii) that it shall not start any spa independent, of hotel owned/leased or mortgaged by it under the trademark “JIVA”.

(b) The impugned order to the extent it restrains the appellant from selling/using or offering for sale/use any ayurvedic product under the trademark “JIVA” shall stand confirmed and made absolute pending final disposal of the suit.”

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs that true spirit of the order dated 30th May, 2007 was that the defendants could not use the mark JIVA for any products or advertise the same but would only have a limited right of use of the mark JIVA i.e. only for its Spa run within its Hotels, till the final disposal of the suit. The operative portion of the order dated 30th May, 2007 passed by the Division Bench is at paras 39 and 44 was referred. The same is reproduced herein below:

“39. In the light of what we have stated above, we have no hesitation in repelling the contention urged by Mr. Rohtagi that since the appellant ca