Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Gurmukh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Singh & Anr. – Respondents
CR-2302-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Headnote:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interlocutory Order - Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff challenged an interlocutory order vacating the interim order due to non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of delivering the complete paper book to the opposite party as mandated by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
Issues: Non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, request for trial court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
Ratio Decidendi: Ends of justice would be met by requesting the trial court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC after ensuring compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition is disposed of with a request for the trial court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on the next date of hearing or within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The plaintiff in a suit filed under Section 27, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, assails the correctness of an interlocutory order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, while vacating the interim order on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the interim order under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
2. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates the delivery of the complete copy of the paper book by registered post to the opposite party when an exparte interim temporary injunction is granted in favour of the appellant. In the present case, the Court has found that the plaintiff did not forward the complete paper book including copy of the application for injunction, copy of affidavit filed in support of the application, copy of the plaint and copies of the documents on which the applicant relies upon.
3. After having heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner, at some length, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the trial court is requested to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC after ensuring compliance of provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. It may be noted here that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has still not been decided on merits.
4. In view thereof, the revision petition is disposed of while requesting the trial Court to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, on the next date of hearing fixed by the trial Court i.e. 12.07.2022 or within six weeks from today, positively.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
