Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors. vs Bhavna A. Patel & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1916 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision :March 20, 2012


+                        FAO(OS) 448/2007

     COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY & ORS.       .....Appellants
         Represented by : Mr.Bhagwati Prasad, Advocate.


                    Versus



     BHAVNA A. PATEL & ANR.              .....Respondents
         Represented by: Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocate.


     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Respondents' suit for declaration and permanent injunction pertaining to the grievance of appellants' website being imitated was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC in which an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on the terms set-out in the ex-parte order dated September 26, 2007.

2. The appellants who were the defendants filed an I.A. No.11398/2007 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted be vacated, which application came up for preliminary hearing on October 3, 2007 and requiring pleadings to be completed, was re-notified for October 30,

2007.

3. The instant appeal was thereafter filed challenging the ex-parte ad-interim order dated September 26, 2007 as also the order dated October 3, 2007.

4. On the first date of hearing of the appeal i.e. on November 13, 2007, operation of the impugned order was stayed and thereafter the matter was simply adjourned from time to time till appeal was admitted on January 13, 2010 and interim order dated November 13, 2007 was made absolute in the appeal.

5. The file of the suit would reveal that the original application seeking injunction i.e. I.A.No.11078/2007 has not yet been argued before the learned Single Judge.

6. The matter has proceeded to trial.

7. Suffice would it be to state that what is in question before the Appellate Court is the legality of the ex-parte ad- interim order granted, and a subsequent order re-notifying the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC and not an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge after the parties had debated the issue before the learned Single Judge.

8. Five years have gone by since the ex-parte ad-interim order granted was stayed in appeal and during this period, parties have not made any attempt to argue the injunction application on merits. They have chosen to proceed to trial.

9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties clarifying that the ex-parte injunction obtained by the respondents would not operate against the appellants. Parties shall be free to move the

learned Single Judge for an expeditious disposal of the application seeking interim injunction. It would equally be open to the parties to ignore wasting time on interim issues and proceed to expeditiously complete trial.

10. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE

MARCH 20, 2012 KA