Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(C) 12/2016 and LA. 10099/2016,4341/2016
M/S HABIB ENTERPRISES Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate
Through: Mr. Aruni Poddar, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for R-2 to R-5.
09.09.2016
ORDER
1. Pursuant to the order dated 2:2.08:2016^ counsel for the respondent No.l is present and so is the.counsel for: the. respondents No.2 to 5, who states that he has no objection toTheVpresent petition being allowed. As for the respondent No.l, learned counsel for the said respondent states that he has not been furnished a complete set,ofthe paper book.
2. It is pertinent to note that the respondent NoT was duly served with the notice in the present petition on 11.05.2016, as per the report of the Process Server. In such circumstances, the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.l that he is unaware of the pendency of the present petition is unacceptable. Another copy of the petition has been furnished to the counsel for the respondentNo.1.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, defendant in TR.P(C) 12/2016 Page 1of[3] 2016:DHC:9198 & CS(OS) 1333/2014 pending in the High Court and in TM No.9/2014 pending before the learned ADJ, South East District, Saket Courts, praying inter alia that TM No.9/2014 may be transferred to the High Court and be tagged with the file ofCS(OS) 1333/2014, so that combined evidence can be led in both the suits and common arguments addressed.
4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.l had instituted CS(OS) 1333/2014 on 03.05.2014, wherein the petitioner had been impleaded as the sole defendant. The relief in the said suit is for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining infringement ofcopyright, trademark passing offetc. Issues were framed in the said suit on 18.12.2015 and the same is listed before the Joint Registrar on 17.10.2016, for recording the evidence of the plaintiff therein (respondent No.l herein). Subsequently, on 13.08.2014, the respondent No.l had filed another suit for the same relief before the District Court, where in addition to the petitioner, respondents No.2. to 5, who are retailers of the petitioner were impleaded as co-defendants. rHssuek'have already been framed in the said suit on 24.02.2015 and the said suit is how listed on 17.11.2016, for recording the plaintiffs evidence therein. He submits that pleadings inboth the cases areidentical andthereliefs prayed for arealso identical. Therefore, both the suits ought to be consolidated for the purpose of trial and arguments.
5. Counsels for the respondent No.l and respondents No.2 to 5 do not have any objection to the aforesaid request.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to summon the file of TM No.9/2014 entitled M/s Nature Essence Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Habib Enterprises and Ors.. pending in the Court of Mr. Lalit TR.P(C) 12/2016 Page 2 of[3] Kumar, ADJ, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, through adespatch rider and tag it with the file ofCS(OS) 1333/2014, subsequently registered as CS(COMM) 608/2016.
7. The presentpetition is disposed ofalongwith the pending application.
8. The date already fixed, i.e, 25.10.2016, stands cancelled.