The findings recorded in the order granting or refusing injunction are to be looked into only in connection with the three basic ingredients, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and do not affect the final adjudication of substantive rights of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan along with Sri Raghav Garg and Sri Tarique Quasimuddin, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Arvind Srivastava separately too, as learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

THE APPEAL

2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC has been filed by the defendants of Suit No.10 of 2021 (M/S. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt Ltd and another Vs. Salik Mukhtar and five others) challenging the order dated 21.09.2022, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Court No13, Varanasi has allowed the application seeking temporary injunction, being Paper No.6-C, filed by the plaintiff-respondents and restrained the defendant-appellants till disposal of the suit from manufacturing or selling product namely, ‘Musa Ka Gul Super’ or any product with the deceptively similar name and logo by which any common man could be deceived.

BINDING EFFECT OF THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AND THIS ORDER

3. Since the present appeal has arisen out of disposal of an application seeking temporary injunction pending suit, the observations and findings recorded in the present order would not be treated as any final opinion on the merits of rival claims of the parties as the same are yet to be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be produced in the pending suit. It is well settled that the findings recorded in an order granting or refusing injunction are to be looked into only in connection with three basic ingredients, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and any such order does not affect final adjudication of substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the observations recorded in the present judgment shall not affect the final adjudication to be made by the court below, independently, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties.

THE FAMILY TREE

4. The record of this case contains discussion of various family members of late Mohd. Musa, therefore, before discussing the factual aspects of the case, it would be necessary to draw a family tree for understanding inter-se relationship between the parties to the lis. It is described as follows:-

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed by M/s M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt Ltd represented through its Director, Mohd. Nazish son of Mohd. Khalique, as plaintiff no.1 and Mohd. Nazish, in his individual capacity, as plaintiff no.2 against six defendants, under Sections 29, 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of Copyrights Act, 1956. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 is a private limited company with the plaintiff no.2 being its Director, involved in manufacturing and wholesale business of ‘Musa Ka Gul Super’, a toothpaste, in States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and other States of India for the last several years, particularly, since 1994. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff no.1 has earned a very high goodwill being a registered company manufacturing ‘Musa Ka Gul Super’ which is famous all over India and the company has its agency, office and store in House No. C-20/6 Mohalla Nawapura (New Pokhari) Habibpura, Ward Chetganj, City Varanasi wherefrom the aforesaid product, ‘Musa Ka Gul Super’, is being sold in district Varanasi as well as nearby districts. It is further pleaded that the copyright office of New Delhi has issued a registered No. A132955 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 conferring right to use the label over the box for the product ‘Musa Ka Gul Super’ and the similar rights have been conferred in relation to use of wrapper also. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff no.1 is registered at registration No. U16004WB2011 PTC170780 and trademark was registered on 15.01.1994 at Trademarks No.616611, certificate No.733679 and that in the year 2021, the plaintiff-respondents came to know about identical production and sale of ‘Musa Ka Gul Super Marka’, ‘Shahi Ta