Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents.

2. The order impugned is dated 27.1.2014 which has been passed in Original Suit No. 2 of 2011 (Smt. Asha Agarwal and others v. M/s. Arvind & Company and others).

3. The plaintiffs-appellants have been refused interim injunction by the Court of first instance in a suit for a decree of perpetual injunction in an action for passing off goods by the defendants-respondents as if they were good of the plaintiffs-appellants.

4. The application for interim injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs-appellants have failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and consequently the balance of convenience is is not in their favour and they are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss in case injunction is refused.

5. The finding that the plaintiffs-appellants have no prima facie case has been returned primarily for the following three reasons:

(1) The firm Ravindra and Company that was using the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap” stood dissolved;

(2) A dissolved firm cannot be reconstituted and the firm Ravindra and Company presently in existence is a new firm having no right over the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap”;

(3) The District Judge, Jorhat (Assam) in a similar suit between the parties instituted at Jorhat has rejected the application of the plaintiffs-appellants for interim injunction which order has been affirmed by the Gauhati High Court.

6. A firm M/s. J.M. Agarwal Tobacco Company Private Limited is a manufacturer of tobacco at Kaimganj, U.P. It is having registered trade mark “Bandar” and “Bandar Chhap”.

7. Previously, a firm Ravindra and Company was constituted with two partners Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Sarita Agarwal wherein subsequently, Smt. Asha Agarwal was taken as a third partner. This firm was also dealing in tobacco and was using the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap”. It applied for the registration of the aforesaid trade mark. It was resisted by the company M/s. J.M. Agarwal Tobacco Company Private Ltd. The matter was reconciled and a compromise was arrived into between the above two parties. M/s. J.M. Agarwal Tobacco company Private Limited permitted the firm Ravindra and Company to use the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap” subject to payment of some fixed royalty. In view of the said compromise, the application for registration of the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap” was withdrawn by the firm Ravindra and Company.

8. It appears that two of the partners Ravinndra Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Sarita Agarwal of the above firm Ravindra and Company decided to withdraw from the partnership as a consequence of which the third partner Smt. Asha Agarwal also expressed her intention to keep herself away from the said firm and to dissolve it.

9. After the aforesaid all three partners expressed intention to withdraw from the partnership and to dissolve the firm, the third partner Smt. Asha Agarwal inducted her husband Surendra Kumar Agarwal as a new partner and is said to have reconstituted the firm on 1.12.2008. The firm continued with the existing business of the tobacco with the same trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap”.

10. On the other hand, a entirely new firm M/s. Arvind and Company was constituted and got registered w.e.f. 1.4.2008 with Arvind Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Beena Agarwal, Ankit Agarwal and Rohit Agarwal as partners. The aforesaid new firm also started doing business in tobacco and adopted the trade mark “Bandar Dholak Chhap”.

11. The supply of tobacco by the aforesaid firms was not confined to the State of U.P. but was also in the State of Assam.

12. Smt. Asha Agarwal, one of the partners in the alleged reconstituted firm Ravindra and Company herself and on behalf of the said firm instituted a suit for a decree o