[2025:RJ-JP:25177] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10077/2025 M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd., Trilokpur Road, Kala-AMB Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour- 173030 (HP) Through Authorized Signatory Harsh Bansal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Tara Chand Jain, Plot No. 28, Shree Kirsna Vihar, 3 Akeda Dungar, Road, No. 18 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013 (Raj.) At Also Village Choti Padap, Nainwa, Bundi 323801, Rajasthan. 2. Hanuman Prasad Jain, Plot No. 28, Shree Kirsna Vihar, 3 Akeda Dungar, Road, No. 18 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013 (Raj.) At Also Village Choti Padap, Nainwa, Bundi 323801, Rajasthan. 3. M/s Birla Wire Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 28, Shree Kirsna Vihar, 3 Akeda Dungar, Road, No. 18 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013 (Raj.) Through Its Authorized Signatory/ Director/ Managing Director/ Manager/ Representative. At Also Village Choti Padap, Nainwa, Bundi 323801, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.D. Bansal For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a partial challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ex-parte interim injunction has been declined. [2025:RJ-JP:25177] (2 of 3) [CW-10077/2025] 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a prima facie strong case in his favour, hence the respondents should be restrained by way of an interim order to use and utilize the Registered Trademark of the petitioner on its products. Counsel submits that inspite of proving the prima facie case before the Sub-ordinate Court, the interim injunction order has not been passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Without entering into the merits and controversy involved in the matter but looking to the fact that injunction application submitted by the petitioner is still lying pending for its adjudication and notices have already been issued to the respondents. In the considered opinion of this Court, the injunction application submitted by the petitioner can be decided by the trial Court within a time frame, after service of notice upon the respondents. 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of, with the expectation from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the injunction application submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of service upon the respondents. 5. The petitioner may take dasti notice from the Sub-ordinate Court for effecting the service upon the respondents. 6. By passing the impugned order, the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC has been allowed and the Commissioner has been appointed to inspect the [2025:RJ-JP:25177] (3 of 3) [CW-10077/2025] site/premises of the respondent. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the Commissioner. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/45