The court emphasizes the necessity of a fair hearing and allows remand for the defendant to contest due to prior counsel's negligence.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in O.S.No.1/2015, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.

2. Heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the trial Court records and the appeal papers.

3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction under section 134, 135 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , by pleading that plaintiff No.1 is a partnership firm and plaintiff No.2 is a partner and are manufacturing and selling branded chewing tobacco and hand made branded beedies from 35-40 years all over the Karnataka State. The defendant with an intention to defraud the plaintiffs in the same logo and trademark of the plaintiffs business concern, with an ill intention to make resemblance of logo and trademark, the defendant is selling low standard quality products, thereby causing injury to the plaintiffs reputation and financial loss. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant though appeared through advocate and filed the written statement, but thereafter during trial the defendant remained absent and did not contest the suit by cross-examining the plaintiff and his witness and also by leading defence evidence. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs has decreed the suit with costs, thereby restrained the defendant from using resembled trademark as that of the plaintiffs and selling the products resembling to the plaintiffs logo and trademark.

6. Being aggrieved by it, the defendant has preferred appeal.

7. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant submitted that the defendant has engaged service of advocate and also filed the written statement, but later on he has retired from the case. Thereafter the defendant has engaged other advocate, but the other advocate has not filed vakalath and has not informed the stages in the suit and in the meantime the trial Court has decreed the suit and thereafter the defendant came to know that the decree is passed against the defendant and he tried to approach the advocate who has received vakalath from the defendant. But the advocate died during COVID-2019 without filing the vakalath. Therefore, under these circumstances the defendant could not contest the suit. Therefore, prays to remand the case to the trial Court by providing an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff and also to lead defence evidence.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the defendant was deliberately absent before the trial Court just to harass the plaintiffs. Further submitted that the defendant does not have any registered logo or trademark. But the defendant with an intention to cheat the plaintiffs was carrying on business having resembled logo and trademark as that of the plaintiffs. Thus, defendant was causing injury to the reputation and financial loss. This is correctly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, it needs no interference by this Court and prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:

i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff and the witness and to lead evidence of defendant?

ii) Whether, under the fac