Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 10,20(c),151

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 10,20(c),151

Law: Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001

Section: 80,73(4)(a),80(4)(a),96(2)(a),14,117

(a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)-------Ss. 73, 80, 96 & 117---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.10, 11 & 20(c)---Suit for revocation of registration of defendant's trade mark and declaring same as invalid and suspension of its operation---Trade marks of both plaintiff and defendant were registered at place "K", but defendant on receipt of plaintiff's legal notice at place "P" filed suit at "P" against plaintiff---Application for stay of subsequent suit of plaintiff at place "K" till decision of defendant's earlier suit pending at place "P" in respect of same trade mark---Validity---Cause of action had partly arisen to defendant at place "P", thus, it was justified to file its suit there against plaintiff---Plaintiff should have filed its suit before District Judge at place "P", where proceedings in respect of same trade mark were already pending---Difference between prayer clauses of such two suits would not hinder passing of order under S.10, C.P.C., for being dependant on fate of suit pending at place "P" and without decision therein of rightful owner of trade mark, no decree in both suits could be passed---If suit at place "P" was decided in favour of defendant, then same would operate as res judicata in plaintiff's suit at place "K"---Matter in issue in both suits (i.e. question of proprietary of trade mark) between same parties was same and defendant's previous suit was pending at place "P" before a competent Court, which could grant relief in plaintiff's subsequent suit also---In absence of any one of the conditions mentioned in S.10, C.P.C., Court could stay subsequent suit in interest of justice, provided decision in previously instituted suit would attract provision of S.11, C.P.C.---Application under S.10, C.P.C., was accepted with observations that interim order passed in plaintiff's subsequent suit would continue to operate till final decision of defendant's previous suit at place "P"---Principles. Muhammad Younus v. Shaukat Ali, 2003 CLD 1037; Standard Finis Oil Co. Ltd. v. National Detergent Ltd. and others 1984 CLC 781; National Distribution Company v. National Detergent Ltd. PLD 1983 Kar. 402; Salim Industries v. Burhani…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492