Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

“The hurrier I go, the behinder I get” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2016 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed at the admission stage itself. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, invoked the provisions of Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) in dismissing the appellants/plaintiffs’ suit.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs had instituted the suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, dilution of goodwill, unfair competition, rendition of accounts etc.. Essentially, the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the respondents were using the trade mark ‘PRIVEE’ which was identical to or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs – MBD PRIVE and PRIVE. The plaintiffs are, inter alia, in the hotel business.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs had filed the said suit as a commercial suit because the damages claimed by them were to the extent of Rs. 1 crore which satisfied the definition of ‘specified value’ as contained in Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Courts Act’). The plaint contained the following prayers:-

“(i) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, its directors, partners or proprietors as the case may be, its assigns in business, franchisees, store owners, licencees, distributors, affiliates, subsidiaries, and agents from using for any or all business activities the Infringing Trade Mark PRIVEB, or any other trade mark or logo/device, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trade marks MBD PRIVE and PRIVE or incorporates the words "Prive", or any other trade mark or logo/device, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the abovementioned Plaintiffs Trade Marks, amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs trade mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act;

(ii) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, its directors, partners or proprietors as the case may be, its assigns in business, franchisees, store owners, licencees, distributors, affiliates, subsidiaries, and agents from using for any or all business activities the Infringing – Trade Mark PRIVEE, or any other trade mark or logo/device, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trade marks MBD PRIVE and PRIVE or incorporates the words "Prive", or any other trade mark or logo/device, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the abovementioned Plaintiffs Trade Marks, amounting to passing off of the goods/products of the Defendants for those of the Plaintiffs;

(iii) Decree for delivery up of all the goods, stationery, hoardings, boards, printed material, dies, blocks, etc., bearing Infringing Trade Marks PRIVEE to an authorised representative of the Plaintiffs for destruction.

(iv) Order for rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned by the Defendants and a decree for the amount so found due, or in the alternate, a decree for damages of at least Rs. 1,00,00,000/- may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

(v) An order for costs in the proceedings.

(vi) Any further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

4. The suit came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.07.2016, whereupon it was directed that the matter be listed before another Bench on 22.07.2016. On 22.07.2016, when the matter appeared before another learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court, he heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on admission and reserved orders. This was followed by the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2016, whereby, as pointed out ab