The court found that an ex parte judgment can be granted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC if the defendant fails to respond, ensuring that the plaintiffs' rights under their registered trademarks are upheld against infringement.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 18774/2022 (under Order VIII Rule 10 and Order IX Rules 6 and 11 CPC, by Plaintiffs)

1. This application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order IX Rules 6 and 11 CPC.

2. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Plaintiffs' trademark, passing off, dilution of goodwill, damages etc. against the Defendant.

3. Vide order dated 08.03.2022 this Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the infringing marks in any manner whatsoever and directed compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks. Defendant was duly served by various modes on 16.03.2022, including by way of an e-mail on 15.03.2022. On 02.05.2022 Defendant was proceeded ex parte as neither the Defendant appeared nor written statement was filed within the statutory period. Since the period of 90 days beyond the initial period of 30 days for filing the written statement expired on 13.07.2022, present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for pronouncement of judgment.

4. The first and foremost contention on behalf of the Plaintiffs is that in view of the Defendant being proceeded ex parte and the statutory period for filing written statement having expired, Court should invoke provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to decree the suit. I find merit in the contention. The intention of the Legislature in inserting Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is to expedite the process of trial. In this context, I may refer to the judgment of this Court in CS(OS) 873/2015, Samsung Electronics Ltd. vs. Mohammed Zaheer Trading As M/s. Gujarat Mobiles & Ors., relevant para of which is as follows:

"10. The Supreme Court in C.N. Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C. Chandregowda, (2012) 5 SCC 265 has interpreted the Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as under:

"25. We find sufficient assistance from the apt observations of this Court extracted hereinabove which has held that the effect [Ed.: It would seem that it is the purpose of the procedure contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC upon non-filing of the written statement to expedite the trial and not penalise the defendant.] of non- filing of the written statement and proceeding to try the suit is clearly to expedite the disposal of the suit and is not penal in nature wherein the defendant has to be penalised for non-filing of the written statement by trying the suit in a mechanical manner by passing a decree. We wish to reiterate that in a case where written statement has not been filed, the court should be a little more cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and before passing a judgment, it must ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment and decree could not possibly be passed without requiring him to prove the facts pleaded in the plaint.

26. It is only when the court for recorded reasons is fully satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved at the instance of the plaintiff in view of the deemed admission by the defendant, the court can conveniently pass a judgment and decree against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case arising from the plaint itself giving rise to two versions, it would not be safe for the court to record an ex parte judgment without directing the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. In that event, the ex parte judgment although may appear to have decided the suit expeditiously, it ultimately gives