Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single judge dated 2nd February, 2009. The said order reads as follows:"02.02.2009 Present: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate, for the plaintiff., Mr. C.M. Lall, Advocate for the defendant. CS(OS) No. 1308/2007 Considering the pendency of number of matters in different Courts, list before Rekha Sharma, J (Court F) on 24th February, 2009. The status quo order in terms of order dated 19th January, 2009 of the Supreme Court to continue till the next date of hearing. The learned counsel for the defendant objects to extension of the status quo order." 2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit under Section 27(2) read with section 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for permanent injunction, restraining passing off, damages, unfair competition etc. against the appellant, alongwith an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 for interim relief against the appellant. Ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the court against the appellant on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. 3. The learned Single Judge vacated the ex parte interim injunction in the suit on finding inter alia, concealment and misrepresentation on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent on 30th July, 2007. Against the order dated 30th July, 2007 the respondent filed an appeal being FAO (OS) No. 331 of 2007 which too was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26th November, 2008. aa’ The said order of 26th November, 2008 was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and the following order was passed on 15th December, 2008: "Since the disputes are pending for a long time between family members, we suggest that the matters be settled out of Court or through mediation/conciliation. Stand over for four weeks. In the meantime, we expect the parties to endeavor and make an effort to settle the matters. Status quo as of today to be maintained in the meantime, until furthers." 4. Eventually, the above Special Leave Petition against the order of that Division bench dated 26th November, 2008 came to be disposed of in the following terms by the Honble Supreme Court on 19th January, 2009: "Vide this Special Leave Petition, challenge is laid to an interim order. At the outset, we find that nine suits are pending in the trial court. They are between the brothers and family members. At the outset, we find that nine suits are pending in the trial court. They are between the brothers and family members. The present proceedings concern essentially passing off action in which impugned interim order is passed. These suits have different nuances. However, the fact remains that they are between the family members. Therefore, we request the trial court to keep all the suits pending before it on a particular date for directions and they will be heard and disposed of within a time-bound programme in appropriate groups which may be done by the trial court after examining the pleadings, uninfluenced by the orders passed earlier. Since the parties are appearing before us, we request the High Court to keep all the nine suits for directions on 2nd February, 2009. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. In terms of our order dated 15th December, 2008, parties appearing before us shall maintain status quo as of today only upto 2nd February, 2009. Thereafter, it would be open to the parties to move the trial court for appropriate interim reliefs pending the hearing and final disposal of the suits, if so advised." 5. Consequent to the above order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 19th January, 2009 the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge leading to the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2009. 6. The appellant has assailed the order of status quo continued by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 19th January, 2009 being clear to the effect that the parties were required to move the trial court for appropriate interim reliefs pending the hearing and final disposal of the suits, the order of status quo could not have been confirmed/passed routinely without affording a hearing to the parties as directed by the Honble Supreme Court, and without passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to the above order of the Supreme Court dated 19th January, 2009, an interim relief application was filed by the respondent, but nevertheless, without any reasoning, the same order of status quo has been continued. He submits that the learned Single Judge disregarded the earlier order dated 30th July, 2007 whereby the ex parte order of injunction was vacated after hearing the parties, and the order of the Division Bench in FAO(OS) No. 331/2007 dismissing the respondents appeal. He submits that the learned Single Judge disregarded the earlier order dated 30th July, 2007 whereby the ex parte order of injunction was vacated after hearing the parties, and the order of the Division Bench in FAO(OS) No. 331/2007 dismissing the respondents appeal. He submits that in the face of these orders, the status quo could not have been directed to be continued for the asking. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Shri. Chandioke submits that the nine suits have still not been consolidated as per the directions of the Honble Supreme Court. He has submitted that the Supreme Court had directed maintenance of status quo since there are nine suits between the parties as these are family disputes. He submits that the Supreme Court had directed that the trial court may hear applications for interim relief uninfluenced by the orders passed earlier. Therefore, it was not only permissible for the respondent to prefer a fresh interim application to seek an injunction, but the learned Single judge was obliged to consider the same uninfluenced by the earlier round of orders vacating the interim injunction against the appellant. It has further been submitted that the parties may be directed to go for an early trial before the learned Single judge. It was further submitted by Mr. Chandioke, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that they are ready to fully cooperate for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application. 8. While there may have been some merit in the plea of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent for expeditious disposal otherwise, but we cannot lose sight of the order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 19th January, 2009. The said order clearly directs as follows: (a) All the nine suits were to be consolidated. (b) The disposal of the suits was to be uninfluenced by the orders passed earlier (c) The parties were to maintain status quo only up to 2nd February, 2009 and thereafter it was open to the parties to1nove the trial court for appropriate interim reliefs pending the hearing and final disposal of the suits. . 9. An interim relief application bearing IA No. 1344/2009 was indeed filed by the respondent. The same was listed before a learned Single Judge on 30th January, 2009 and notice was issued to the appellant defendant, which was accepted in Court through counsel. . 9. An interim relief application bearing IA No. 1344/2009 was indeed filed by the respondent. The same was listed before a learned Single Judge on 30th January, 2009 and notice was issued to the appellant defendant, which was accepted in Court through counsel. The matter was directed to be notified on 2nd February, 2009. On 2nd February, 2009 the impugned order was passed. 10. It is thus clear that the appellant was granted hardly any adequate opportunity to respond to the said application. The learned Single Judge has, in our view, lost sight of the mandate of the order of the Honble Supreme Court which continued status quo order only up to 2nd February, 2009, and specifically required the filing of fresh application by the parties to seek any interim relief. No doubt the aforesaid application was filed by the respondent but the mere filing of the same could not have been a reason to pass an order of status quo without assigning any reason. The learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that the status quo passed by the Honble Supreme Court on 19th January, 2009 was to operate only up to 2nd February, 2009. For passing a fresh interim order, the court should have granted sufficient opportunity to the parties to present their case, and only after hearing them, a reasoned order ought to have been passed. The Honble Supreme Court while granting status quo up to 2nd February, 2009 clearly stated that it was open to the parties to move the Court for interim reliefs. The Honble Supreme Court thus, clearly indicated a fresh application of mind upon filing of a fresh application for interim relief. In our view, the proper construction of the order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 19th January, 2009 would clearly be that a fresh application of mind is required to be made by the trial court, as the Honble Supreme Court had also directed that fresh applications would have to be filed by the parties to seek interim relief. 11. In this view of the matter, the order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge granting status quo cannot therefore be sustained and we, accordingly set aside the said impugned order. 11. In this view of the matter, the order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge granting status quo cannot therefore be sustained and we, accordingly set aside the said impugned order. We also direct that all the nine suits as directed by the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated 19th January, 2009 shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge before whom the matter are listed on today. The appellant should file its reply to IA No. 1344/2009, if not already filed within 10 days from today. Rejoinder may be filed by the respondent within a week thereafter. The learned Single Judge may, if the board permits, take up the application for hearing on the next date and pass a reasoned order. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.