JUDGMENT :

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.

1. The appellant M/s. Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge during the trial of C.S. No. 215 of 2015 - M/s. Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Puma Sports India (Pvt.) Ltd. and another in Application Nos. 5585 & 5586 of 2017 filed by plaintiffs/appellants under Order XI, Rule 1 read with Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC, to permit the plaintiffs/applicants to deliver the interrogatories to the respondents to answer and to issue Subpoena to the respondents/defendants.

2. The learned Single Judge however rejected these applications by the common order dated 29.01.2019 giving the following reasons in the said order:

"52. A thorough examination of rival submissions reveals that plaintiffs are unable to show any, changed circumstances which have changed post 26.09.2016. To go a step further, plaintiffs have not been able to show that there are any changed circumstances after 18.02.2016, i.e., after first order of Hon'ble Division Bench in intra court appeals where time lines were drawn up. To be noted, 'changed circumstances'; necessitating subpoena and interrogatories applications or in other words, circumstances which did not exist on 18.02.2016 or on 26.09.2016.

53. When plaintiffs by their own volition (to be noted when CMH of said Act was not operating in this Court) had agreed for. expediting the trial by agreeing for time lines for every step and stage of the trial, there is nothing to show that the same; was done without giving a thought to the present interrogatories and subpoena applications. Furthermore, the present interrogatories and subpoena applications alone are not interlocutory applications that have been filed after the orders of Hon'ble Division Bench. As alluded to supra, a barrage of applications had been filed. As plaintiffs by their own volition had agreed for expediting trial and time lines, an extremely heavy burden is cast on plaintiffs to demonstrate and convince the court that there were changed circumstances which have, necessitated filing of instant applications. In the alternative, plaintiffs should at least be able to show that there was some impediment or something that prevented plaintiffs from visualizing the need and necessity qua the present interrogatories and subpoena applications being perceived at the time of agreeing to time lines before the Division Bench. In this view of the matter, a strong and emphatic submission made on behalf of defendants is that plaintiffs, after agreeing for time lines before Division Bench not once, but twice and even after Division Bench expressed its anguish about time lines not being adhered to and reiterating that the main objective was to expedite the trial, are filing barrage of applications only with the intention of delaying and if possible derail the trial. To buttress this emphatic submission, it is strongly reiterated that plaintiffs are having interim orders that have been absolute (interlocutory applications) in their kitty and these applications are being pressed into service to extend the benefit of these orders to the longest possible period of time.

54. A judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 can be referred to for stressing the importance of proceeding with the trial in the main suit once interim orders are granted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 46 held as follows:

46. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim, injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement?

55. A further caref