Markandey Katju, J.— Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 18-5-2009 in OSA No. 92 of 2008.
2. It appears that a suit bearing number CS No. 1111 of 2007 had been filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court alleging infringement of its Patent No. 195904 under the Patents Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”). The learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction on 16-2-2008. Challenging the said interim order dated 16-2-2008, an appeal was filed by the respondent-defendant before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 18-5-2009. Hence, this appeal before us by special leave.
3. It is evident that the suit is still pending before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. We are unhappy that the matter has been pending in the High Court at the interlocutory stage for such a long time as the suit was filed in December 2007 and yet even written statement has not been filed.
4. Recently, we have held in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala (2009) 10 SCC 257 as follows:
“… Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper.
Proviso (a) to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.
In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.”
As has been observed by us in the aforesaid case, experience has shown that in our country, suits relating to the matters of patents, trade marks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and hence we had passed the abovequoted order in the abovementioned case to serve the ends of justice. We direct that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in this country punctually and faithfully.
5. In the present case, although arguments were advanced at some length by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that instead of deciding the case at the interlocutory stage, the suit itself should be disposed of finally at a very early date. Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct the respondent-defendant to file written statement in the suit, if not already filed, on or before the last date for closing of the Madras High Court for Dussehra holidays. We would request the learned Single Judge who is trying the suit to commence the hearing of the suit on the reopening of the Madras High Court after Dussehra holidays and then carry it on a day-to-day basis. No adjournment whatsoever ordinarily will be granted and the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30-11-2009.
6. The interim orders of this Court dated 8-6-2009 and 31-8-2009 are vacated and substituted by the following directions. The respondent shall be entitled to sell its product but it shall maintain accurate records/accounts of its all-India and export sales. We are appointing a Receiver to whom the records of such sale shall be furnished every fortnight by the respondent and the same shall be signed and authenticated by a responsible officer of the respondent. A copy of the same shall be given to the appellant also.
7. We are requesting the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to forthwith nominate a Receiver in the matter to whom the sale records/accounts will be submitted by the respondent fortnightly, and the Receiver will verify the said sale records/accounts and thereafter submit his report to the learned Bench of the Madras High Court where the suit is pending. A copy of the same will be sent to the parties also. This direction will continue till the pendency of the suit. The remuneration of the Receiver will be fixed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
8. We make it clear that we are not making any observations on the merits of the case. The learned Single Judge shall decide the suit without being influenced by this order or by any observations made in the impugned order of the Division Bench or in the order of the learned Single Judge granting temporary injunction in favour of the appellant herein. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court who shall place the same before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for obtaining the appropriate directions. Copy of this order be given to the parties today itself.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Civil Appeal No. 6310 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No. 14039 of 2009
10. Leave granted. In view of our judgment in civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 13933 of 2009, this appeal is also disposed of on the same terms. No costs.