Order : (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) 1. By way of filing this misc. appeal, a challenge has been led by the appellant to the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Judge’) by which Temporary Injunction application filed by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected. 2 Counsel for the appellant submits that a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act of 1999’) was submitted by the appellant against the respondent restraining it to use the word ‘Swastik’ and its label on its product. Counsel submits that along with the suit a Temporary Injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also submitted for restraining the respondent to use the word ‘Swastik’ and its label on its products till final disposal of the suit. Counsel submits that the said application, filed by the appellant, was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 29.10.2018. Counsel submits that as per the facts pleaded in the suit, the appellant is using the above Trade Mark and its label since 1950, while the respondent is using the aforesaid Trade Mark and its label since 1972. Counsel submits that although both the parties obtained registration of their Trade Marks from the competent authority in the year 1983 but the Trade Marks registered in favour of the respondent was later on cancelled and revoked by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark vide order dated 15.10.2018. Counsel submits that the aforesaid material aspect of the matter was not taken care of and overlooked by the trial Judge, while rejecting the application filed by the appellant. Counsel submits that the respondent cannot use the word ‘Swastik’ or its label as its Trade Mark for the products particularly when the same has cancelled/revoked by the Competent Authority vide order dated 15.10.2018, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. He also submitted that in similar matters, this Court has allowed the temporary injunction application submitted in the case of Rajani Products Vs. Bhagwan Das Harwani and Ors. while deciding the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2198/2020 on 19.03.2025. He also submitted that in similar matters, this Court has allowed the temporary injunction application submitted in the case of Rajani Products Vs. Bhagwan Das Harwani and Ors. while deciding the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2198/2020 on 19.03.2025. In addition to the above judgment, counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Ors. reported in 2015:DHC: 8832 and Pioneer Nuts and Bolts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goodwill Enterprises, reported in 2009(41) PTC 362 Del. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has failed to establish this fact on record that the Trade Mark and label ‘Swastik’ was not being used by the firm of defendant/ respondent as their brand and label since 1972. The respondent submitted Trade Mark application No. 406278 dated 02.06.1983 with the concerned authority for getting registration and same was allotted/registered to him. Counsel submits that the appellant submitted their trade mark application bearing No. 411334 on 29.09.1983 i.e. much after to the filing of application by the respondent. Counsel submits that both the appellant as well as the respondent were granted Trade Mark of Swastik for manufacturing and distribution of Mustar Oil, Edible Oil, Ground Nut Oil and Soyabeen Refined Oil for different districts and the appellant was granted the Registered Trade Mark for the aforesaid purpose for their selling Districts Sawaimadhopur, Kota, Bundi, Jhalawar, Udaipur, Chittorgarh and Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan while the respondent was granted the aforesaid Trade Mark for the sale in the Districts of Ajmer, Bikaner and Tonk in the State of Rajasthan. Counsel submits that though the registration Trade Mark of the respondent was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar, not on merits, but on technical count along with granting liberty, with the specific observations that publication/advertisement of the impugned trademark made in the Trade Marks Journal also stands cancelled and the impugned trademark is ordered to be advertised again in the Trade Marks Journal with correct particulars with regard to the proprietorship of the firm. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant with regard to the use of trade mark ‘Swastik’ prior to the respondent. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant with regard to the use of trade mark ‘Swastik’ prior to the respondent. Considering these material aspect of the matter, the Court below has rightly rejected the injunction application filed by the appellant, as the matter requires leading of evidence by the parties which would be recorded at the appropriate stage, while disposing of the suit filed by the appellant. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon three different provisions contained under Sections 12, 34 and 107 of the Act of 1999. Counsel submits that two different trade marks and two different labels can be granted to two different proprietors in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1999 and though, the respondent is not using the registered trade mark and even, if allegation is there against him, appropriate action can be taken under Section 107 of the Act of 1999. Counsel for the respondent lastly argued that a counter claim along with Temporary Injunction application was also submitted by the respondent and the counter Temporary Injunction Application filed by the respondent, was also rejected by the Court below vide the same impugned order dated 29.10.2018. Counsel submits that the respondent has not assailed the same for the reasons that liberty was granted to both the sides for adducing appropriate evidence in their favour during the course of hearing of the suit. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Rival submissions have been made by the respective parties with regard to the Trade Mark and the label. Though, it is the case of the appellant that his firm is using Trade Mark ‘Swastik’ since 1950 as its brand, while as per the case of the respondent the same has been used by them since 1972 and for getting registration of the same, an application bearing No. 406278 was submitted on 02.06.1983 before the concerned authority and the same was registered vide certificate No. 202131 on 13.11.1997. The appellant also submitted the Trade Mark application bearing No. 411334 before the Competent Authority and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.08.1990. The appellant also submitted the Trade Mark application bearing No. 411334 before the Competent Authority and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.08.1990. The Trade Mark registration certificate was issued in favour of the respondent was assailed by the appellant on a technical count before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark by way of filing an application for rectification. The said application filed by the appellant was allowed and the Trade Mark registered in favour of the respondent was revoked and cancelled on 15.10.2018 with the following observations and directions:- “However, as already noted above, since the entry relating to registration of the impugned trademark is without sufficient cause and wrongly remaining on the register, the same is hereby cancelled. The impugned trademark is hereby removed from the register forthwith. The registration certificate No. 202131 is hereby revoked. The publication/advertisement of the impugned trademark made in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1146 dated 01.03.1997 at page 1780 is also cancelled and the impugned trademark is hereby ordered to be advertised again in the Trade Marks Journal with correct particulars with regard to proprietorship thereof. The instant application for rectification is hereby disposed off as above without going into further merits.” 6. It has been apprised at Bar that the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Registrar was assailed by the respondent by way of filing an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board at Chennai but the Board/Tribunal were abolished by enactment/enforcement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. It has been brought into the notice of this Court that as a consequence thereof, all the matters pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board were transferred to the concerned High Courts having writ jurisdiction and accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent was transferred to the Gujrat High Court and the same is still pending for its adjudication on its merits. As on the date, the respondent is not in possession of the registered Trade Mark of ‘Swastik’ and its label and there is no interim order operating in his favour. Unless and until, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar (Trade Mark) is stayed or quashed by the Court concerned, the respondent would not be able to use the same. 7. The whole case of the respondent is based on the registered Trade Mark issued in its favour on 13.11.1997 which has already been cancelled and revoked on 15.10.2018. Unless and until, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar (Trade Mark) is stayed or quashed by the Court concerned, the respondent would not be able to use the same. 7. The whole case of the respondent is based on the registered Trade Mark issued in its favour on 13.11.1997 which has already been cancelled and revoked on 15.10.2018. Hence under these circumstances, the appellant alone is having the registered Trade Mark and Label of ‘Swastik’. In these circumstances, a prima facie case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant. The appellant has been able to make out a case that unless the relief, as prayed for is granted, the appellant would likely to suffer irreparable injury. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant. 8. This Court is not going into the merits and demerits of the matter, at this stage, as the same is required to be decided by the trial Court in the main suit on the basis of the evidence to be led by both the sides. 9. It is noteworthy to mention here that even the respondent has also submitted counter claim along with counter temporary injunction application to restrain the appellant from using the same Trade Mark and label of ‘Swastik’. But the counter temporary injunction application of respondent has been rejected by the same impugned order dated 29.10.2018 but the respondent has not assailed the same, hence the impugned order has attained finality qua the respondent. 10. Without entering into the versions and cross-versions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant appeal by quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Court below, while allowing the application filed by the appellant, restraining the respondent to use the Trade Mark and label of the appellant on its products, till final disposal of the suit. 11. The respondent would be at liberty to place on record, a copy of the order, if any passed by the Gujarat High Court. In case, any interim stay or final order is passed in favour of the respondent against the order dated 15.10.2018, the same can be brought into the notice of the trial Court for passing appropriate orders under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 12. In case, any interim stay or final order is passed in favour of the respondent against the order dated 15.10.2018, the same can be brought into the notice of the trial Court for passing appropriate orders under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal as well as stay application stand disposed of. 13. It goes without saying that whatever observations made by this Court are made for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal and the temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It is made clear that his Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Trial Court would decide the suit on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, without being influenced by any of the observations made, herein above by this Court. 14. At this stage, counsel for the respondent submits that the suit is pending before the Trial Court since 2011 and evidence of plaintiff is complete and the case has been marked as “old targeted case”. Counsel submits that looking to the controversy involved in the suit and in the interest of both the parties, a direction be issued to the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously as early as possible within a time frame. 15. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited vs. TVS Motor Company Limited reported in 2009 (9) SCC 797 and Shree Vardhman Rice and General Mills vs. Amar Singh Chawalwala reported in 2009 (10) SCC 257. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in 2024(2) SCR 946 has restrained the Constitutional Courts for fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of the cases, pending before any Subordinate Court. 17. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in 2024(2) SCR 946 has restrained the Constitutional Courts for fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of the cases, pending before any Subordinate Court. 17. Considering the arguments of the rival sides and looking to the fact that the matter pertains to the trade marks and is lying pending for its adjudication for last more than 16 years and the case has been marked as “old targeted case” and looking to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vardhman Rice (Supra) wherein it has been held that the matter relating to Trade Mark, copy rights, should be finally decided expeditiously by the trial Court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Trial Court to decide the pending suit expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year.