Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent.

2. This is a revision by the defendants-revisionists against an order rejecting their application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the stay of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that their application for rectification under Section 57 of the Act regarding the plaintiff’s trademark is pending before the appellate Board.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a suit No. 2 of 2010 alleging that he is registered user of the trademark “Chacha Chaudhary”. The said trademark No. 1675846 was registered on 7.7.05 on an application filed in the year 2002 and as such would relate to the date of filing of the application. The defendants revisionists have started manufacturing and selling their products in the name of “Chacha Aur Chaudhary” which is identical and deceptively similar to that of their registered trademark and as such by a decree of permanent injunction, the defendants revisionists and their agents be restrained from marketing ‘Namkeen’ products under the name and style “Chacha Aur Chaudhary”.

4. It is not disputed that previously in a petition Under Article 227 No. 1982 of 2012 M/s Girraj Food Products v. Umesh Kumar Gupta and another, this Court vide order dated 8.10.2012 had directed to Court concerned to proceed and decide the above suit in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of that order.

5. Later a Writ Petition of No. 52265 of 2012, Umesh Kumar Gupta and another v. Kamlesh and another, was filed challenging the order of the District Judge dated 26.9.2012 rejecting the application of the defendants revisionists under Section 24 C.P.C. for the transfer of the case to another Court. This Court vide order dated 18.10.2012 with the consent of the parties transferred it to the Court of District Judge with the specific direction to decide the suit within four months from the date of production of the certified copy of that order.

6. In short the direction is to proceed and decide the suit expeditiously within a time bound period.

7. The defendants revisionists at this juncture filed an application purported to be under Section 57 of the Act for the rectification of the trademark “Chacha Chaudhary” of the plaintiff respondent on the ground that they are the prior user of the trade name “Chacha Aur Chaudhary” and that the plaintiff respondent concealing the said fact had obtained the registration of their trademark “Chacha Chaudhary”.

8. It was in view of the pendency of the above application under Section 57 of the Act that the defendants revisionists moved an application under Section 124 of the Act on 19.11.2012 for staying the proceedings of the suit.

9. In this revision the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the proceedings of the suit No. 2 of 2010 instituted by the plaintiff respondent are liable to be stayed under Section 124 of the Act in view of the pendency of the defendants revisionists application under Section 57 of the Act.

Section 124 of the Act reads as under:

“Stay of proceedings where the validity of registration of the trademark is questioned etc.—(1) Where in any suit for infringement of a trademark.—

(a) the defendant pleads that registration of the plaintiff’s trade mark is invalid; or

(b) the defendant raises a defence under clause(e) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendant’s trademark,

the Court trying the suit (hereinafter referred to as the Court), shall,—

(i) if any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff’s or defendant’s trade mark are pending before the Regist