MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for infringement of registered patents.

2. No interim order was passed.

3. When the written statement filed by the plaintiff to the counter-claim was taken on record by order dated 9th December, 2015, the defendant challenged the said order before the Supreme Court who expedited the trial in the present matter. The trial had been fixed by this Court in view of the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.34886-34887/2015 titled as ‘Lava International Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson’ wherein the directions were passed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of filing of replication/written submissions. Accordingly, as the replication was filed by the defendant on 4th January, 2016, the period of six months, therefore, expires in July, 2016.

4. During the hearing of the interim application, without prejudice, many suggestions were given by the defendant through counsel i.e. (i) overall settlement in the suit, (ii) proposal made by the defendant for deposit of substantial amount as security with the Registrar General of this Court if the plaintiff would not press the injunction application and in case the settlement is not arrived at in the main suit, the trial in the suit be completed within 3-4 months.

5. In order to show its bonafide, counsel for the defendant had handed over the proposed schedule for trial on behalf of the defendant on 29th January, 2016:-

	Stage	Time Granted	Tentative Date
1.	Submission of List of Witnesses by the parties	10 days	10th February, 2016
2.	Filing of Evidence by way of affidavits by the parties.	4 weeks	9th March, 2016
3.	Recording of Evidence and cross examination of witnesses before Commissioner	4 weeks (About 2 weeks each party)	23rd March, 2016 onwards and to be concluded by 1st May, 2016
4.	Filing of written arguments by the parties	2 weeks	15th May, 2016
5.	Commencement of oral arguments		To be fixed as per convenience of the Court.

6. There was no consensus about the quantum of amount offered by the defendant as security in the application. Both parties then agreed that injunction application be decided on merit and at the same time, trial may also continue. Accepting their submission, the issues were framed on 2nd February, 2016 in the suit, counter-claim filed by the defendant and another suit for declaration filed by the defendant prior to the infringement suit originally in Noida Court which has been transferred to this Court after the order of the Supreme Court. On 22nd February, 2016, with the consent of the parties, the schedule for the trial was fixed.

7. Vide order dated 22nd February, 2016 the Court appointed Mr. Dinesh Dayal as the Court Commissioner to record evidence of the parties. Under the case management provisions of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act of 2015.

8. The following timeline was laid down by this Court, with the consent of both parties:

“…….

i. 4 weeks for filing evidence affidavits in affirmative by both the parties i.e. till 21st March, 2016

ii. Thereafter, cross-examination (8 hours per witness) i.e. 28th March, 2016-15th March, 2016;

iii. Thereafter 2 weeks for filing rebuttal evidences i.e. 5th May, 2016;

      iv. Commencement of final argument from 30th May, 2016…..”

9. The common evidence of parties is to be led by both parties in the suit, counter-claim and in the suit for declaration filed by the defendant.

10. The list of witnesses filed by the defendant on 18th February, 2016 contain these witnesses namely:-

Sl. No.	Name and Address	Remarks
1.	Sunil Bhalla, Founder Director, Lava International Ltd.	To prov