JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present appeal assailing the order dated 1st July, 2015, made by the trial Court declining its application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), for grant of temporary injunction. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised, are that the appellant/plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is into business of tea manufacturing under the registered trade mark `Maheshwari'. It is pleaded case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant recently started using deceptively similar artistic work/packing material/label/desi gnunder by the name `Vijay Shree', with an intention to encash upon the hard earned goodwill of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit proceedings for rendition of accounts, damages and permanent injunction for infringement and passing off action of the artistic work/packing material/label of the registered trade mark `Maheshwari' as well as infringement of copyright. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.N. Mathur, assisted by Mr. G.D. Bansal, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, emphatically argued that the trial Court committed gross error for it recorded a wrong finding on the issue of registration since the appellant/plaintiff has been accorded registration of Trade Mark Type : Device and Word Mark : `MAHESHWARI AND DEVICE OF CUP AND SAUCER'. The registration has been accorded in response to its Registration Application No.1201204 with reference of Class : 30. It is further contended that conditions and limitations have been incorporated in the backdrop of contemplation under Section 2(za) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short `the Act of 1999'). 4. Learned counsel would further assert that the entire Scheme of the Act of 1999 is made to prevent deceptive similar features in the event of a dispute as to trade mark. According to the learned counsel, in order to arrive at a conclusion whether one trade mark is deceptively similar to another or not? the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered and they should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design, and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered and they should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design, and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. (vide R. Gopalakrishnan v. Venkateshwara Camphor Works: A.S. No.301 of 1987 decided on 31st August, 2000 by the High Court of Madras). It is emphasised that while opining as aforesaid, the High Court of Madras relied upon the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co.: AIR 1970 SC 146 , observing that even though there is no visual resemblance between the two marks, but the close affinity of sound would establish deception and the majority of customers were not capable of understanding the meaning of the two words. 5. For the trial Court while making the impugned order recorded similarities of the two marks rather than to consider the matter on well recognised principles which have been time and again reiterated to the effect that what is contemplated under Section 29 of the Act of 1999, is whether a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who is not being the registered proprietor uses in the course of trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the trade mark in relation to any goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. In order to fortify his submissions, reliance has been place on the opinion of this Court in the case of Navyug Commercial v. Maheshwari Tea Company Ltd. Ltd.: 2013 (56) 596 (Raj.). 6. Per contra; Mr. In order to fortify his submissions, reliance has been place on the opinion of this Court in the case of Navyug Commercial v. Maheshwari Tea Company Ltd. Ltd.: 2013 (56) 596 (Raj.). 6. Per contra; Mr. Samit Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent, while supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Court declining the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, asserted that no doubt registration applied for by the defendant/respondent was declined but the Court below committed no error in declining the application of the appellant/plaintiff for the trial Court took note of the pleadings under paragraph 6 of the plaint. Learned counsel would further submit that while arguments were raised in the backdrop of contemplation under Section 28(2) of the Act of 1999, but the trial Court though declined the application of the appellant/plaintiff, but did not deal with the objections aforesaid. 7. However, learned counsel admitted the fact that the finding arrived at by the trial Court as to non-registration of the trade mark in favour of the appellant/plaintiff is erroneous, but that was not the only ground on which the application has been declined. Referring to the text of Section 30(2) of the Act of 1999, learned counsel would urge that there would be no infringement of a registered trade made in the eventualities as detailed out thereunder. Hence, keeping in view of the conditions and limitations, the application of the appellant/plaintiff has been rightly declined. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Shekhawat v. M/s. Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd.: 2014 WLC (Raj.) 454; wherein the Coordinate Bench declined to interfere with the order made by the trial Court on an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC that was dismissed. For identification of the essential feature of a trade mark is in essence a question of fact dependent upon the evidence laid in the first instance before the trial Court as regards to the usage of trade as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories: AIR 1965 SC 980 . Therefore, the trial Court committed no error in taking note of the alleged deceptive similarity; a question of fact. 8. Therefore, the trial Court committed no error in taking note of the alleged deceptive similarity; a question of fact. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. From a glance of the impugned order dated 1st July, 2015, it is evident that the trial Court while declining the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC did record a wrong finding as to registration of trade mark in his favour. It is also not disputed that the argument raised in the backdrop of Section 28(2) and 30(2) of the Act of 1999, having been raised were not considered while making the impugned order. 10. From the impugned order, it is further reflected that though the trial Court has taken into note of the citations, which were referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties, but have not dealt with as to their application/non-application to the case at hand. The instant appeal instituted on 11th August, 2015, has been pending since then. 11. It is informed by the counsel for the parties that the suit proceedings are still at the initial stage in view of institutions of an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint. However, the position is disputed. Be that as it may, for the present, suffice it to say that the trial Court has not considered the core issues, which were raised and has recorded findings contrary to the materials available on record. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 1st July, 2015, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to adjudicate upon afresh on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC detailing out the factual matrix in the backdrop of the materials available on record so also the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties. It is further directed that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit proceedings expeditiously following steps suggested by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors.: 2011 (8) SCC 249 , observing thus: "52. It is further directed that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit proceedings expeditiously following steps suggested by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors.: 2011 (8) SCC 249 , observing thus: "52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials. A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed. B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the Defendants or Respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed. F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court. G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court. G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice. I. If in a given case, ex-parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided. J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed. 53. According to us, these aforementioned steps may help the courts to drastically improve the existing system of administration of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would take some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed across the country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil courts is bound to improve. 54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc." 13. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc." 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the next date fixed and argue the matter on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. The application aforesaid be adjudicated upon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within thirty days from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.