1. The plaintiff has instituted all these suits for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/s in each of the suits from using the trade mark ‘HINDUSTAN VITREOUS’ or ‘H VITREOUS’ or any other mark that is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff on its products or which infringes the trade mark of the plaintiff and from thereby passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs of delivery and costs.

2. Each of the suits was entertained and vide ex parte ad interim orders therein the defendant/s in all the three suits were restrained as sought and a commission issued to visit the premises of the defendants and to seize the infringing goods.

3. The counsel for plaintiff on enquiry states that the plaint in all the three suits is identical. This Court, for the purpose of this order, has referred to the plaint and the applications in CS (Comm.) No.1082/2016.

4. It is not in dispute that the defendant/s in each of the suits are situated at Thangadh in Gujarat.

5. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff, besides these three suits had also instituted CS (Comm.) No.1382/2016 against another set of defendants, also situated at Thangadh in