PER COURT :

Heard both sides finally at the stage of admission.

2. Being aggrieved by order of rejection of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), appellant-original plaintiff has preferred present Appeal from Order. He has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1/2001 before District Judge-I for perpetual injunction and action for passing off against respondents-defendants. Application Exh. 6 was also been filed along with the plaint.

3. By my order dated 06.10.2025, parties were directed to disclose the status of the suit on the next date. It was not disclosed, therefore, I was required to pass order on 04.11.2025 calling for the report from the Presiding Officer in respect of the status of the proceedings as well as application dated 22.8.2024, which was filed by the respondents for proceeding with the suit. In pursuance of those orders this Court received report of the Presiding Officer dated 19.11.2025 disclosing the status,

various dates and the manner in which the suit proceeded. My anxiety was to know as to why the matter did not proceed further when the impugned order was passed before four years and there was no stay to the proceedings.

4. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Patil submits that the impugned order is unreasoned and cryptic. Most of the text is devoted to the discussion of the case law and the principles laid down therein. No endeavor was made by the learned Judge to compare the trademark of the appellant with the offending trademark. There are absolutely no reasons discussing similarity or deceptive similarity in the trademarks of the parties. It is submitted that it is a fit case to remand the matter for reconsideration of Exh. 6.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the documents were produced by the appellant and prima facie case is made out, which is not properly appreciated by the learned Judge. The appellant is in business since many years and has sufficient turnover and the offending trademark of the respondents is affecting trade, business and good will. It is further submitted that due to pendency of the present appeal the appellant did not proceed with the suit, as the interim injunction has relevance. It is submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate with the Trial Court if the matter is remanded for fresh decision over application Exh. 6. My attention is also adverted to the principles laid down by various judgments and especially by the Division Bench in the matter of Sole Proprietor Vs. Siram Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.; AIR 2021 Bom 198.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bajaj relies on affidavit in reply to show that suit did not proceed further due to lapses on the part of the appellant. Even application Exh. 29 has required to be submitted for proceeding with the suit, which was also not been decided. He would submit that the application for registration submitted by the appellant was

contested by his client and the competent authority rejected on 31.01.2024 by a speaking order. It is further submitted that considering the parameters laid down by the Division Bench in the matter of Sole Proprietor (supra), which is referred in the impugned judgment, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application Exh. 6. The appellant failed to make out prima facie case which is very first parameter laid down by the Division Bench. It is submitted that in the absence of any tangible material to show that there was ever any business or good will of the appellant, the further enquiry into comparison, deceptive similarity is unwarranted. He would support the findings recorded by the Trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the report submitted by the Presiding Officer dated 19.11.2025 what transpires is that Regular Civil Suit No. 1/2001 filed for perpetual injunction in respect of infringement of trademark and ‘passing off’ has not been progressed much, even after four ye