THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3810 OF 2013 Dated:24-10-2014
Between:
Times of India Group of Publications, Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd., Times House, 8-2-351, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad rep., by its Authorised Signatory ... PETITIONER AND Magfast Beverages, rep., by its Proprietor Sri Syed Ghaziuddin, S/o late Syed Fakhruddin, aged 55 years, R/o.22-8-535/1&2, II Floor, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad and three others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3810 OF 2013 ORDER:
This revision is filed challenging the order dated 19-06-2013 passed by the Court of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A No. 448 of 2012 in O.S No. 95 of 2004.
The petitioner herein is not a party to O.S No.95 of 2004. However, the circumstances under which the revision is filed are as under:
The 1st respondent herein i.e., Magfast Beverages and its proprietor Syed Ghaziuddin (plaintiff No.1) filed O.S No. 19 of 2004 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein i.e., Pepsico Inc (defendant No.1), Pepsico (India) Holdings Limited (defendant No.2), the petitioner (defendant No.3) and the Vartha Telugu Newspaper (defendant No.4) for the relief of damages and perpetual injunction. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand filed O.S No. 95 of 2004 against the 1st respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction as to infringement of trademark, copy right and passing of acts of unfair competition. Both the suits were clubbed. The evidence is being recorded in O.S No. 95 of 2004. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e plaintiffs in that suit completed their evidence. At that stage, the 1st respondent i.e., the sole defendant in O.S No.95 of 2004 filed the I.A under Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein and the Vartha Telugu Newspaper i.e., defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S No. 19 of 2004 to lead their evidence before the 1st respondent is required to adduce its evidence. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A through the order under revision.
Heard Sri D. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
It is unfortunate that the suits that were filed more than ten years ago are languishing at the stage of recording of evidence. Most of the delay appears to be on account of the indiscriminate filing of interlocutory applications by the parties even on the smallest pretext.
It is no doubt true that the petitioner herein is not a party to O.S No.95 of 2004 and as regards many of the issues that are framed in the suits, the burden to prove them is either upon the 1st respondent or respondent Nos.2 and 3 who filed the respective suits. The fact however remains that the 1st respondent has grievance not only against respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the plaintiffs in O.S No. 95 of 2004, but also against the petitioner and the Vartha Telugu Newspaper who figured as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S No. 19 of 2004. Had both the suits been not clubbed, the 1st respondent would have been required to adduce its evidence in O.S No. 19 of 2004 and thereafter, the petitioner and other respondents would have been required to adduce their evidence. Since common evidence is being recorded, it is but natural that the party who is having the serious opposition to the one who has already adduced evidence, must be permitted to adduce its evidence at the end. It is in this context, that the trial Court wanted the petitioner and the Vartha Telugu Newspaper to adduce their evidence, particularly when they have no serious opposition whatever to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. At the most they can be granted the right to adduce rebuttal evidence, if the necessity arises after the 1st respondent adduces its evidence.
Therefore, the C.R.P is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take up the suits for trial on priority basis and dismiss all the applications filed in relation to the recording of evidence irrespective of the party which filed them and conclude the recording of evidence within a period of three months from today. The suit itself shall be disposed of within three months thereafter.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
24-10-2014 L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ks