( 1 ) BOTH these appeals have been placed before this Full Bench in view of the order dated 19. 6. 2002 of a Division Bench of this Court referring the appeals for consideration and decision before the Larger Bench in view of the vide impact of the questions about interpretation of Section 100a of the Code of Civil Procedure and about maintainability of appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" or "the TM Act") against the decision made by a learned Single Judge of this Court under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 109 of the Act.

( 2 ) OJ Appeal No. 53 of 1998 is filed against the judgment and order dated 22. 6. 1998 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 109 (2) and (4) of the Act by which the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22. 12. 1995 granting the review application filed by Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant before us ). ANNAPURNA Udyog Bhandar (hereinafter referred to as "annapurna Udyog") had filed an application for registering the word "annapurna" as the trade mark. On publication of the notice of application, Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant before us - hereinafter referred to as "nasik Hing") filed their notice of opposition to the application for registration. The hearing of the case was fixed on 3. 5. 1995 to which Nasik Hing asked for postponement. However, that request was not granted and the application for opposition was heard on 3. 5. 1995. Nasik Hing moved an interlocutory application on 11. 5. 1995 stating that the bill books and the books of accounts of Annapurna Udyog be made available to Nasik Hing for inspection so as to verify the claim of user of the trade mark. However, on the basis of the hearing that had taken place on 3. 5. 1995, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad passed order dated 24. 5. 1995 rejecting the application for opposition and granting the application of Annapurna Udyog for registration of its trade mark. On 3. 7. 1995, Nasik Hing filed an application for review. The Assistant Registrar granted the said application by recalling the order dated 24. 5. 1995 and fixed for hearing the application for registration as well as the one for opposition. Since that order of the Assistant Registrar has been set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the appeal of Annapurna Udyog, Nasik Hing has filed the present OJ Appeal under Section 109 (5) of the Act.

( 3 ) SIMILARLY, OJ Appeal No. 73 of 1998 is directed against the judgment and order dated 6. 8. 1998 passed by the same learned Single Judge in another appeal under Section 109 (2) of the Act. ESHAN Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "eshan") had filed an application in 1987 for registration of the word "amoxim" as trade mark claiming its user since 1979. Beecham Group PLC (hereinafter referred as "beecham" - the appellant before us) lodged notice of opposition on various grounds. The notice was lodged before the Registrar and ultimately by his order dated 31. 3. 1993, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application for registration of the said trade mark. Aggrieved by the said order, Eshan filed an appeal before a learned Single Judge of this Court under Section 109 (2) (4) of the Act. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar to the extent it rejected the application for registration, directed the Assistant Registrar to proceed with the application in accordance with law without being bound by any opinion expressed in his order dated 31. 3. 1993 and also directed that Beecham shall be permitted to raise the grounds raised in their interlocutory application in support of their notice of opposition and that both the parties shall be afforded opportunity for leading evidence also in respect of the facts needed to be