Harsha Devani, J.

1. In all these appeals from order more or less identically worded orders dated 16th March, 2019, except in Appeal from Order No.104 of 2019 wherein the order is dated 22nd March, 2019, are subject matter of challenge and the facts and contentions are also similar and hence, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The respondent-original plaintiff instituted suits being Commercial Trade Mark Suits No.12 of 2019, 13 of 2019, 14 of 2019 and 16 of 2019 respectively, before the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad praying that the defendant, their successor, servants, agents, dealers, stockists and distributors be restrained permanently and perpetually from manufacturing, marketing, advertising and selling products/goods under the Trade Marks in label Bablu Chini Noodles, Bablu Popcorn, Bablu Jeera Papad and Bablu Tarzan Snacks respectively, and other ancillary reliefs. In the above suits, the plaintiff had also filed applications for ad-interim injunction at Exhibit 7. The applications for injunction in case of the first three suits came to be heard on 16th March, 2019 and in case of Commercial Trade Mark Suit No.16 of 2019 on 22nd March, 2019, on which dates, the Commercial Court by the impugned orders passed below Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 1 in the respective cases, granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant, its successors servants, agents, dealers, stockists and distributors from committing any act of passing off the goods by selling under the Trade Mark Bablu Chini Noodles, Bablu Popcorn, Bablu Jeera Papad and Bablu Tarzan Snacks, respectively, which are ditto to ditto, identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered well known trade mark Bablu Chini Noodles, Bablu Popcorn, Bablu Jeera Papad and Bablu Tarzan Snacks, respectively, till the next date of hearing. The court further directed the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order XXXlX rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and directed that the matter be listed on 20th March, 2019. The Court also clarified that the defendant would be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum under the provisions of Order XXXIX rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Being aggrieved the appellants (original defendants) have filed the present appeals from order under Order XLIII rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.

3. Mr. Harshit Tolia, learned advocate for the appellants, assailed the impugned order submitting with vehemence, that the same has been passed in breach of the provisions of rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Code. Referring to rule 3 of Order XXXIX, it was submitted that the same mandates that if the court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. It was submitted that in the impugned order, the Commercial Court, except for referring to the language of the statute, has not given any reasons as to why delay would defeat the cause. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, wherein the court has adumbrated the facts which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex-parte injunction. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161, wherein the court has held thus :-

“34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the Proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said "the Court shall in all cases, except where it appears