JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

CAV. 198/2020

In view of the appearance of the respondents, the caveat stands discharged.

CM APPL. 8535/2020 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

FAO 106/2020 & CM APPL. 8534/2020 (stay)

1. Appellant impugns order dated 04.02.2020 whereby appellant has been restrained from using the mark ‘Wellness Health Lab’ and also impugns order dated 15.02.2020 whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellant has been adjourned to 20.03.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had already filed a caveat which was served on the respondent and despite service of caveat, they failed to serve the appellant prior to filing of the Suit. He further contends that there is non-compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC as also the fact that when the appellant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the same was adjourned to 20.03.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submits that ad-interim injunction was granted because appellant who was an earlier employee of the respondents had recently adopted a deceptively similar mark. He further contends that compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC h