' The respondent has moved aq application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. (C. M. A. No, 780 of 1983 praying therein for issuance of injunction to restrain the applicant from advertising, marketing, selling and manufacturing their goods in the name of "Brite Sun" on the plea that, the applicants are taking undue advantage of the order of this Court passed on .13th February, 1983. It has been further prayed that applicants be also restrained from using the said order as a licence to start unfair competition and pass off their goods in the market using the name of the respondent.
2. The respondent bas also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P. C. (C. M. A. No, 781/83) praying therein to vary the order passed on 13th February, 1983 to the extent that the applicants be res trained from selling+ marketing, advertising and manufacturing the products under the name "Brite Sun" pending the decision on the main application and further for appointment of a receiver and for direction to the applicants to file monthly statements of income.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them. I however find that it is not necessary to deal with all the questions which were raised at the time of hearing of these two applications in view of the statement made by Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, learned counsel for the respondent that he would not press these applications in case the applicants are directed to file monthly statements of account of their income with the Nazir of this Court. Mr. Zari, learned counsel for the applicants, however, opposed this request made by the Advocate for the respondents.
4. After considering the various aspects of the case which pursuaded me to pass the order on 13th February, 1983, I find that the proposal made by the learned counsel for the respondent is reasonable. In fact when pointed out to Mr. Zari, the learned counsel for the applicants, that durin the arguments on C. M. A. 181/83 it was he who had made the offer that the applicants were prepared to file monthly statements of account in Court so that the interest of the respondents be protected if ultimately they succeed, he was unable to give any cogent reason why such a direction to not given now. Indeed I find that such direction could be given by the Court while passing the order on an interlocutary application for the stay of pending suit for infringement until the disposal of the petition for rectification of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Reference, if required, be made to the case of A. R. Ganga Dhara & Co., Nirmal and another v. Firm of Police, Mullahar, Rajeshwar & Co., and others. Mr. Zari the learned Advocate, however, submitted that the offer was made by him during the arguments on the earlier application and that at this stage the respondents cannot claim any such direction from the Court.
In my opinion the petitioners are trying to take advantage of an omission in incorporating the direction in the order dated 13th February, 1983 in accordance with their own offer and that in equity and interest"' of justice, they cannot be permitted to resile from the same.
5. I accordingly direct the applicants to submit monthly statements of account of the transaction in respect of goods sold by the applicants under the mark "Brite Sun" with the Nazir of this Court till the final disposal of this petition.
6. The applications were disposed of by short order passed on 6th April, 1983. The above are the reasons for the same.
Direction issued. AIR 1962 Andh. Pra. 510