(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Injunction – Infringement of trade mark and passing off – In order passed by Single Judge, there was no adjudication with regard to rights of respondent-plaintiff to get an ad-interim injunction during pendency of suit – Though by postponement of issue with regard to grant of ad-interim injunction, order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to respondent-plaintiff; same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction or not – As such, order passed by Single Judge did not contain traits and trappings of finality – Order cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ within meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such, appeal to Division Bench of High Court was not tenable – An appellate court, after findings of trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating view taken by trial judge and examining correctness or otherwise thereof within limited area available – If appellate court itself decides matters required to be decided by trial court, there would be no necessity to have hierarchy of courts – Insofar as tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are concerned, there is not even a mention with regard to these in impugned judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court – Approach of Division Bench of High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalled for – Courts in India are already overburdened with huge pendency – Such unwarranted proceedings at behest of parties who can afford to bear expenses of such litigations, must be discouraged – Present appeal deserves to be allowed with token costs – Respondent-plaintiff shall pay a token cost of Rs.5 lakhs to Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (MIG). (Paras 25, 29, 36 and 37)

(B) Letters Patent Appeal – Maintainability – Term ‘judgment’ used in Letters Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to term ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each and every order passed by trial judge could not be construed to be a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to number of orders which would be appealable under Letters Patent – Word ‘judgment’ has a concept of finality in a broader and not in a narrower sense – Where an order vitally affects a valuable right of defendants, it will be treated as a ‘judgment’ within meaning of Letters Patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench – Most of interlocutory orders which contain quality of finality, would be ‘judgments’ within meaning of letters patent and, therefore, appealable – However, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but which also possess characteristics and trappings of finality inasmuch as such orders may adversely affect a valuable right of party or decide an important aspect of trial in an ancillary proceeding – However, for such an order to be a ‘judgment’, an adverse effect on party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote – Though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by trial Judge in course of suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or other, they cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain traits and trappings of finality – Each and every order passed by Court during the course of trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of parties, cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ – If such is permitted, floodgate of appeals would be open against order of Single Judge. (Paras 17, 18 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 24th December 2019, arising out of the order passed by Single Judge of the High Court dated 2nd April 2019, by which Single Judge had granted time to the appellants-defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition and directed to post the matter after three weeks. By the said order, Single Judge also directed the appellants-defendants to maintain weekly accounts of sale of the products covered by Class 6, which are sold under the mark ‘SHYAM’.

Findings of Court:

Single Judge is requested to decide application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. Till further orders are passed by Single Judge, order passed by Single Judge dated 2nd April 2019 would continue to operate.

Result : Appeal allowed.