V.K. Shali JUDGMENT
V.K. Shali, J.
1. This order shall dispose of F.A.O. No. 470/2012 titled M/s. Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors., C.M. (M) No. 532/2013 titled Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors. and F.A.O. No. 496/2012 titled Haldiram (India) Pvt. Limited v. Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr.
2. In F.A.O. No. 470/2012 titled Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors., the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in I.A. No. 1675/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in TM No. 02/2011 [earlier C.S. (OS) No. 635/1992] titled Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. M/s. Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. is under challenge.
3. In F.A.O. No. 496/2012 titled Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors., the appellant has challenged clause 43(1)(a) and (b) of the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in I.A. No. 1675/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in TM No. 02/2011 [earlier C.S. (OS) No. 635/1992].
4. In C.M. (M) No. 532/2013 titled Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors., the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application of the appellant/defendant seeking review of the order dated 27.09.2012 passed on I.A. No. 1675/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in TM No. 02/2011 [earlier C.S. (OS) No. 635/1992] is under challenge.
5. As a matter of fact, the reading of the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 shows that the averments made in the review application were not within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and it was a fresh attempt to argue the application for grant of stay which was rightly rejected by the learned ADJ.
6. It has been also noted by the court that on the day when the review application was pressed, the appellant had already filed an appeal (FAO 470/2013) in the High Court which was pending adjudication. It was observed that the appellant was in fact availing both the remedies that is appeal and review and thus, was held to be guilty of abuse of the processes of law and was visited with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid to the legal aid.
7. I am of the considered view that the order of rejection of review is not a substantive order and thus cannot be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution. More so, when the main order dated 27.9.2012 is already under challenge, therefore, this CM (M) is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. In F.A.O. No. 496/2012 titled Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr., the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in I.A. No. 1675/2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in TM No. 02/2011 [earlier C.S. (OS) No. 635/1992] titled Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. M/s. Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. to the extent granted liberty to the respondents to use the trade mark Haldiram Bhujiawala along with 'V' Logo as reflected in Trade Mark No. 330375 till decision of rectification in Para 43(1)(B) of the said........