' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This FAO impugns the order, dated 10-2-2001 passed by the learned trial Court whereby an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.
Filed by the appellant has been dismissed in the circumstances appearing below.
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit under section 8 of the Registered Designs Ordinance 2000 seeking inter alia, a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents-defendants from infringing the registered design of the appellant and from passing off their goods as the goods of the appellant. The suit was filed on 26-10-2000 whereafter notices were issued to the respondents- defendants. The application under Order, XXXIX was listed for arguments on 8-2-2001. By then only respondent No,2 had appeared and had tiled a reply to the said application. Respondent No,1 till then was not represented and both respondents had not, as yet, filed their written statements.
3. The order, dated 8-2-2001 after noting the presence of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff recorded that Muhammad Aslam Zia, Advocate, has filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No,1 and was present on behalf of both respondents. Arguments on the stay application were heard on 8-2-2001 and the case was adjourned to 10-2-2001 for orders on the same. It is important to note that no written statements on behalf of the respondents-defendants were on record on 8- 2-2001. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reply to the stay application, which had been filed earlier on behalf of respondent No,2, was not accompanied by any document other than an affidavit of respondent No,2. This circumstance is also established from the contents of the Order Sheet considered above. However, the impugned order, dated 10-2- 2001 has made copious reference to the written statements, replies and other documents which it seems were provided to the Court some time after the conclusion of arguments on 8-2-2001. The stay application was then dismissed.
4. It is quite obvious from the above that the learned trial Court proceeded to rely on documents which were not before it when the stayapplication was argued on 8-2-2001 and nor were such document provided to the appellant-plaintiff. The least which can be said is that the trial Court has acted in an unlawful manner causing prejudice to the appellant-plaintiff. It is equally clear that the fundamental principles of natural justice were not adhered to as the impugned order was based on pleadings and documents, which were'not on record and had not been made available to the appellant-plaintiff when the stay application was argued.
5. In the above circumstances, the impugned order, dated 10-2-2001, being wholly illegal, is set aside. The stay application filed by the appellant-plaintiff shall be deemed pending before the learned trial Court which shall be decided afresh after hearing both sides and after ensuring that copies of all pleadings and documents filed by the respondents-defendants are given to the appellant-plaintiffs.
6. The next date of hearing before the learned trial Court is 25-9-2006. The office shall ensure that a copy of this order is transmitted to the learned trial Court before the next date of hearing.