$~ R-37 * IN THE HIGH COURT
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment Pronounced on: July 10, 2012
2. The finding of the learned Single
Judge was that the suit itself does not disclose any cause of action for any
reliefs claimed.
3. The suit as well as the interim
application was listed before the Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that only in
the interim application, arguments were addressed by both sides.
4. As far as the finding arrived in the
interim application is concerned, we have heard the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and after hearing, we are of the considered view
that it is not a fit case which requires any interference, in view of the
averments made in the pleadings of the defendants and documents placed on
record. The learned Single Judge after
examining those documents has rightly come to the conclusion that the documents
filed by the defendants therein showed that they have been using the word ‘KAMDHENU’
as their corporate name/trade name since 1969; their documents also revealed a
partnership deed of 1986 and the material on record also suggested that they
have been using the mark at least since 2000 if not earlier. The suit was filed in the year 2010. The business activities of both the parties
are different, as the plaintiff/appellant is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling steel products and on the other hand, the
defendants/respondents are in the business of trading spices, pickles etc.
5. We agree with the said finding
arrived by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the interim application being
I.A. No.13348/2008. However, by
rejecting the interim injunction, the learned Single Judge has also rejected
the plaint by observing that the suit itself does not disclose any cause of
action for any of the reliefs claimed.
6. We are not agreeable with the said
view taken by the learned Single Judge, as a cause of action is a bundle of
facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purposes of obtaining
relief claimed in the suit. Whether a
plaint discloses a cause of action or not is an essential question of fact, but
whether it does or does not, must be found out from reading of the plaint
itself. In ascertaining, whether the
plaint shows a cause of action, the Court is not required to make an elaborate
inquiry into doubtful or complicated question of law and facts. Rejection of plaint is a serious matter, as
it non-suits the plaintiff and it finishes a cause of action, the moment plaint
is rejected. In the present case, we
feel that the plaint ought not to have been rejected while deciding the interim
application. Even there was no representation
on behalf of the respondents in this regard.
8. The suit shall be listed before the
Joint Registrar on 16th August, 2012 who shall serve the
defendants afresh and after completion of admission/denial of the documents
would list the suit before Court for settling issues and directions for
trial.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MANMOHAN
SINGH)
JUDGE JULY 10, 2012/ka
No comments:
Post a Comment