The discretion to permit interrogatories should be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the claim, necessity, and potential prejudice to the opposite party.

These two civil revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry and the challenge is to the order passed by the learned trial Judge allowing the applications filed by respondents 1 to 4 invoking Order 11 Rules 1 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit in O.S.No.3 of 2002 was filed by the revision petitioner before the District Judge, Puducherry praying for a judgment and decree to restrain the respondents, their agents, and men from committing piracy of their registered design bearing No.186574 in respect of the shape and configuration of the pens by manufacturing, selling, distributing BITCO FINGER pens which is an imitation of the get up and trade dress of plaintiffs 045 SMARTGRIP pens in any manner whatsoever and for other consequential reliefs.

3. In the plaint in O.S.No.3 of 2002, the revision petitioner as plaintiff contended thus:-

(a) The plaintiff has a technical know-how agreement with Reynolds formerly known as M/s. Reynolds S.A., France. The plaintiff is an exclusive licensee in India to use the trademark "REYNOLDS". The trademark enjoys an extensive international reputation, which has spilled over into India. The plaintiff has introduced in September, 2001 a new model "045 RENOLDS SMARTGRIP” and the said pen is unique in its design, shape and configuration.

(b) The plaintiff has also applied for and obtained design registration for the entire pen as per registration No.186574. By virtue of the distinctive design, shape and configuration the plaintiffs "045 RENOLDS SMARTGRIP" has acquired enormous reputation within a short span of time. The trade and public have come to associate the distinctively shaped "045 RENOLDS SMART GRIP" pens with the pens manufactured and sold by the plaintiff.

(c) The plaintiff became aware in May, 2002 about the similarly shaped and designed pens being sold at Puducherry. Necessary enquiry was conducted and it was made known that the first defendant is the distributor selling on a commercial scale within the city of Puducherry, pens manufactured by the fifth defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 are the partners of the fifth defendant concern. The investigation further revealed that the defendant’s pen are sold commercially on an extensive scale in the city of Puducherry.

(d) The defendants have adopted an identical design as that of the plaintiff in respect of their pen "BITCO FINGER". The only point of differentiation is that they have used their own name in respect of the pens but have copied every other feature of the plaintiffs "045 RENOLDS SMART GRI P" in its entirety. Since the illegal activities of the defendants are causing and are likely to cause irreparable damage to the sales, reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, the defendants were called upon to cease and desist from manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising any pen, which is an imitation of plaintiffs "045 RENOLDS SMART GRIP" with design registration No.186574. However the defendants failed to comply with the requisitions which made the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The suit was contested by the respondents, being defendants. In the written statement filed by the fifth respondent, being first defendant, it was their contention that they were not the distributors of pens on a commercial scale in the City of Puducherry. According to the first defendant their business is in buying and selling books, guides and other stationery items. In short, the first defendant specifically denied that they were engaged as distributors of defendants 1 to 4 at any point of time.

5. The fourth respondent/fifth defendant filed a detailed written statement wherein they have denied the entire allegations and averments as contained in the plaint. According to the fifth defendant they are not manufacturing pens including the impugned design pens and they were only engaged in marketing pens. The fifth defendant spec