SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the injunctive order without taking into consideration that the trade mark of the appellant in his favour has attained finality, so much so that Registrar Trade Mark has accepted the application, but now its opposition by respondent No.1, is pending before him. He went on to argue that another suit by respondent No.1 is pending, in the same court (trial Court) wherein after framing of issues, evidence of the parties is being recorded. Learned counsel argued with vehemence that proceedings before respondent No .
3 are quasi-judicial who under the special statute is the sole authbrity to grant or refuse the registration of a trade mark, on which basis parties claim the conclusive use of a trade mark.
Learned counsel argued with vehemence that issuance of impugned injunctive order has put a restraint on the authority which has the sole jurisdiction. It was also argued that the order passed by learned trial Court has been made in neglect of the provisions of section 46(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand stood behind the impugned order and argued that the subject appeal is without any force.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ,
4. Gulsher Khan, Examiner of Trade Marks Lahore, submits that the matter of registration of trade mark of the appellant is ripe but due to pendency of the appeal the case has been adjourned sine die .He affirmed that respondent No.1 is opposing the registration and has actively participated in the proceedings before the Registrar.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the record perused.
6. Order impugned before me is an interim order whereas in the main suit the appellant has entered appearance and has filed written statement as well as the reply to the application. An application under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. Filed by the appellant is also pending before the learned trial Court The questions raised in this appeal, are available to the appellant to agitate before the Court of first instance. Needless to mention that when these questions are raised, the learned trial Court will entertain the same and will dispose of the application through a speaking order.
7. Now adverting to the anxiety of the appellant that the learned trial Court, without appreciating that suit was not competent, passed the restraint order. The whole business of the appellant is blocked in view of injunctive order while the delay, is causing further loss to his business. The appellant has approached the appellate Court for speedier remedy. Such grievance can be redressed, through an appropriate direction The learned trial Court is, therefore, directed to take up the application of temporary injunction without further wastage of time. Needless to mention that while deciding the application of temporary injunction, learned trial Court will attend to all objections raised by the appellant including the objection as to maintainability of the suit and the effect of the pendency of the earlier suit coupled with the opposition of the trade mark .The learned trial Court shall decide the grant or otherwise of the temporary relief, as early as possible but not later than one month from 5-5-2007, the date already fixed by the Court.
8. Disposed of in the above terms.