Ramaprasada Rao, J.- Four suits were tried together by Paul. J., and a common judgmentwas rendered. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Messrs. Espee and Company and he is the common plaintiff in all the suits. The defendants, however, are different. In this Judgment, we are concerned with C.S. Nos. 67 of 1969 and 167 of 1971 against which the plaintiff has preferred O.S.A. Nos 53 of 1975 and 51 of 1975 respectively. In O.S.A. No. 82 of 1976 the aggrieved defendants have filed a separate appeal against the grant of special costs by the trial Judge in C.S. No. 67 of 1969.

2. The relevant facts to appreciate the scope of these three appeals, can be summarised thus: The plaintiff claims to be an inventor of a patent and a device as the sole proprietor of Messrs. Espee and Company and one such patent discovered by him relates to combined closure and dropper for bottles and like containers of liquid. He secured the necessary statutory sanction to claim rights as patents having obtained the same from the Controller of Patents and Designs, under the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1971 which was then in force and it is common ground that he has obtained a certificate evidencing such entitlement in him. The invention claimed by the plaintiff, as set out by the learned Judge in his judgment relating to this specification, is as follows:

"1. A combined closure and dropper for a bottle or like container for liquids which consists of flexible cap or the like with a hollow chamber and provided with a spout projecting laterally from the body part of the said cap, the said spout having a capillary hole leading from the hollow chamber to the outside the arrangement being such that when the cap is fitted to the neck of the bottle containing a liquid, the liquid is dispensed through the spout in desired quantities by pressing the cap.

2. A combined closure and dropper according to claim-1 in which the said spout is integral with the body part of the flexible cap or the like.

3. A combined closure and dropper according to claim-1 in which the said spout is farmed integrally with a ring of elastic material which is fitted in a groove formed around the body part of the cap or the like, the arrangement being such that when the cap is fitted to the bottle with the hole in the spout aligned with a hole provided in the said groove and leading to the said hollow chamber, the liquid is discharged by pressing the cap.

4. A combined closure and dropper for liquid-containing bottles according to claim-1 characteristic in that the said spout is constituted by one arm or a bent tube projecting outwardly through the cap, the other arm of the said tube being arranged to extend downwardly into the bottle below the level of the said liquid and very near the bottom of the bottle when the cap is fitted to the neck of the bottle or the like, so that the liquid is discharged by pressing the cap without tilting the bottle or the like.

5. A combined closure and dropper according to any of the preceding claims substantially as described and illustrated with reference to Figures I to 15 of the accompanying drawings.“

3. While thus being vested with a right to have a monopoly in the matter of the patent and the articles manufactured under it, the plaintiff’s case is that the first defendant in C.S. No. 67 of 1969 began using the said device viz., the combined closure and dropper device and the second and third defendants aided him in manufacturing the same. In G.S. No. 167 of 1971 the case of the plaintiff is that during one of his visits to his native place at Rajkot he was informed of the availability of such closures and droppers in the free market and on enquiry he found that the defendants were amongst the infringers of the patent, and therefore he came to Court for the reliefs asked for by him in the plaint instituted for the purpose both against the defendants in O.S. No. 67 of 1969 and C.S. No. 167 of 1971. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants

Click Here to Read the rest of this document