1. Application No. 4688 of 2015 has been taken out by sole defendant in the main suit with a prayer for revocation of 'leave to sue' ('LTS' for brevity) granted by this Court in Application No. 2218 of 2012. Though the date on which 'LTS' was granted is not mentioned either in the leave revocation application or in the Judge's Summons, a perusal of the suit file placed before me reveals that 'LTS' was granted on 27.04.2012 in Application No. 2218 of 2012.

2. Sole plaintiff in the main suit is obviously the lone respondent in the instant leave revocation application.

3. From hereon, parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. It is necessary to give short facts under the caption 'FACTUAL MATRIX IN A NUT-SHELL' setting out facts which are absolutely essential for appreciating this order.

5. FACTUAL MATRIX IN A NUT-SHELL:

(a) Nucleus of the main suit is a registered trademark being Trademark No. 1458480 registered under Class 34 for beedies and tobacco included in Class 34. The trademark registration certificate has been filed as Plaint Document No.5. This trademark is registered in favour of plaintiff and the same being nucleus of this lis, shall be referred to as 'suit TM' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

(b) A perusal of aforesaid trademark registration certificate reveals that suit TM is as follows:

IMAGE

(c) The aforesaid suit TM as contained in the registration certificate is in black and white. However, plaint gives the principal face of plaintiff's label in colour and the same is as follows:

IMAGE

(d) A further perusal of legal use certificate for suit TM reveals that plaintiff is user of suit TM from 15.09.1975, the trademark type is 'LABEL' and the word mark, which has been accorded registration is 'No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI'.

(e) It is plaintiff's case (as can be culled out from plaint averments) that, sometime in November 2011, plaintiff came across deceptively similar labels being used by defendant on the same products, ie., beedies. It is the further case of plaintiff that defendant's goods with alleged infringing mark were purchased sometime in December, 2011. Saying so, plaintiff has depicted the principal face of the label of the defendant, which is as follows:

IMAGE

(f) On the aforesaid basis, suit has been filed with prayers seeking injunctive relief qua infringement of suit TM and usual incidental and ancillary prayers seeking surrender of packing material, rendering of accounts. Costs and usual residual limb of a prayer also form part of the prayer paragraph.

(g) Sole defendant who entered appearance filed an application in Application No. 5255 of 2012, inter alia, under Order VII Rule 11 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for brevity) with a prayer for rejection of plaint. It is not in dispute that this application for rejection of plaint, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'first rejection of plaint application' for the sake of convenience and clarity, came to be withdrawn by the defendant on 06.12.2012. Defendant made an endorsement in the application concerned, which reads as follows:

"Applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the application.

Sd/-

(Counsel for applicant)

06.12.2012

(h) Pursuant to the aforesaid endorsement, the following order came to be passed by Court on 06.12.2012:

"The learned counsel for the applicant prays to withdraw this application and has made an endorsement in the Court bundle. Recording the endorsement, this application is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn."

(i) Thereafter, defendant has taken out the instant application being Application No. 4688 of 2015, inter alia, under Clause 12 of Letters Patent with a prayer for revocation of leave, which was granted at the time of inception of suit. To be noted, details pertaining to grant of 'LTS' (as available in the suit file placed before me) have already been alluded to supra.

(j) Plaintiff has filed counter affidavit in Application