The High Court · 2025

M/s. Sri Tulasi lndustries, Represented by its Managing Partner N.Kalyan S/o. N.Maruthi Aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No.1-5-499., Sircilla Road, Kamareddy-SO31 1 1 (TS). Sri Rajarajeswara Kiranam, H.No.6-8-667/6r ., 5031 'l 1 ^.^* :::::":::::il11 ...RespondenUDefendant. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings in OS No. 3 ot 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal District & Session Judge, At Kamareddy. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. Ramesh Babu Vishwarrathula Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER i. . Z7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PETITION No.3961 of 2025 ORDER: \ This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

17.07.2025 in I.A.No.397 ol 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2025 passed by the leamed District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

2. Heard Sri V.Ramesh Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and disposing the matter at the stage of admission by dispensing notice to respondents.

3. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is ln view of the pendency of the rectification/cancellation petitions as to Trade Marks Application No.3 136998 and 4039640 before the learned Registrar of the Trade Mark at Chennai and to enable the petitioner to apply for rectification of the register of the Trademarks No.5257288 ard 5257289 and prayed that the suit in O.S.No.O3 of 2025 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy to be stayed until rectihcation/cancellation petitions are disposed of.

4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner No.l is the defendant No. I before the trial Court and the J ) 2 NNR,I ( R. P.No.396l oJ2025 respondent/plaintift filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2025 cn the file of learned Princ:pal District and Sessiolls Judge, Kam;tr rrJdy. seeking permanent injunctiou restraining the dcfendants frorn i,rfringing the statutory right of the plaintilf to the 'fradcmark. I)t:rding Suit, it appears that lhe petitioner/defendant No.l prelened 1.A.No.397 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2025, seeking stay of all furth,:r proceedings o1'the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2025 in view of pendenc.v, t f application for recti fica t io n/cancel lation. A perusal of recorrl reveals that Tr.C.M.P.No.23l ol 2025 was filed bcfore this Courl Lrndcr Scction 2'1 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, by the perition,:rs/dcfendants, sceking transfer of O.S.No.3 of 2025 pending befrrr: the learned District Judge, Kamareddy, Telangana State to the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Natgonrl:, to be tried along with O.S.No.2 of 2025 and the same was di,Lnissed bv the Coordinate llench of this Court vide order dated (12.09.2025 in Tr.C.M.P.No.23l ol 2025, with an observarion rhat in view of the disrnissal of docket order dated 11.08.202.5 in O..(i. \o.2 of 2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge i( Nalgonda, Tr.C.M.P.No.23l of 2025 is not maintainable. PenCing'l'r.C.M.p, the Coordinirte Bench of this Court earlier has strn ed all further 3 NNR,J C.R-P.No.J96l of 2025 proceedings in Tr.C.M.P.No.2l1 of 2025 vide I.A.No.l of 2025, whereby the suit in O.S.No.3 ol 2025 pending on the file of District Court at Kamareddy has been stayed lor a period of six (6) week vide order dated 04.0'7.2025. In view of the stay granted by this Court, it appears that the leamed Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, vide impugned order dated 17.07.2025 ln I.A.No.397 ol 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2025 dismissed the petition, which reads as follows: Defendunt No.l in O.S.No.l oJ 2025 hus filed this petition the Trqdc Marks under Section 121 of Act r/w Section l5l of CPC praying the Court to stay the proceedings in this suit until the final disposal of recti,licution/cancellation pelilions lo Trade Marks Application No.3136998 and 4039640 befitre rhe Regstrar of Trade Mark at Chennoi. Today, Sri Venu Prasad, Advocatc, v,ho is stated to be represenling learnel coun.sel lor petitbner/D I has hunded over to the Bench Memo abng with copy of order of Hctn'bla High Court dated 04.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of2025 in Transfer C.M.P.No.23l of 2025, under which stay of all .further prctceedings in O.S.No.j of 2025 was granted for a periocl of 6 weeks. In vieu, of the said order of Hon'ble High Court, this petition hos become infntctuous as of now. Therefore. lhis petition is dismissed as inlactuous for the present giving liberty to pctitioner/Dl to file fresh petition ds and when it is required, as per law. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Judge ought to have kept the lnterlocutory Application pending till the disposal of the Transfer Petition. In view of the stay of all 4 NNR,J {.R P.,vo.3961of2025 fufther proceedings vide orders dated 04.0'1 .2025 rr l.A.No.l of 2025 in l'r.C.M.P.No.23 I o12025 passed by this Corrr'.. the learned Judge, ought not to have passed the said order: during the pcndency of the stay.

6. Having fully aware of the lact that there is a stay of all further proceedings but the leamed Judge, on the lround that the Tr.C.M.P is pending, the petition, seeking sta) ol all further proceedings in O.S.No.3 of 2025 was dismissed ;t, inliuctuous, prima-facie, it appears that the order passed b1 thc lcarned Principal District Judge is erroneous and the learned.ludge, ought not to have passed the said order, rather, the learnerl Judge, would have kept lnterlocutory Application pending rrLd even the subsequent order dated 17.07.2025 in the suit, thotruh the leamed Judge adjourrled the matter to 29.08.2025. In vit:rr ol'the stay granted by this Court and in view of the disposal o1"f'.C.M.P, there will be no stay pending from this Court, the learned.ludge ought to have taken the said application for deciding whether the stay can be granted or not on rnerits after the disposal of the Tr.(, M.P. Y

7. In view of the Tr.C.M.P.No.231 of 2025 is dismissed as 5 NNR,J C.R-P-No.3961 of2025 infructuous and as on date there is no interim order subsisting and the interim order which was granted only fbr limited period i.e. for six (6) weeks and no furlher extension was granted therefore, this Court deems it proper to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Accordingty, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed The order date 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.397 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 ol 2025 passed by the leamed Distriot and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy is hereby set-aside. 'lhc leamed Judge is directed to take up both the Interlocutory Applications i.e., t.A.No.226 of 2025 and I.A.No.397 of 2025 together and dispose of the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in the present Revision. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- AVS PRASAD, DEPUTY REGISTRAR. 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J. The District and Session Judge, Kamareddy. One CC to Sri. Ramesh Babu Vishwanathula, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies. YIR HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER CRP.No.3961 of 2025 ,')':. -' - .-\- .- li.r; i: ::- : .:). ' ,-! ,. .. :l' I l I i l I I I i I I .{ ,. .ii;::.-.-- i.\ I'lt- \- r,,.{t,.,:.\_ '(ln-.\ I ? I'iilu ?u5 -): . ., .. :-t - DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION iPETITION.