SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The original plaintiff/respondent, pharmaceutical company has sued the first defendant/appellant, as also the second respondent/C & F agent as the second defendant on account of the use of identical trademark by the appellant in respect of identical products. The trademark of the first respondent/original plaintiff is ''ADMENTA'' and the appellant is using ''ADMENSIA.''

2. The original plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application for injunction and interim orders were granted in favour of the original plaintiff. The appellant, as defendant, moved for vacating the stay and also raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

3. The impugned order has dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction and opined in favour of the original plaintiff.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on different dates and even today.

5. We are not touching the merits of the controversy because that is still pending consideration before the learned single Judge. Suffice to say that the cause of action paragraph is paragraph-19 and the issue of territorial jurisdiction has been dealt with in paragraph-20 of the plaint.

6. Paragraph-20