Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010177752026 2026:GAU-AS:14003 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2870/2026 SAKTI STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DUGAR BHAWAN, H.B. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, KAMRUP, GUWAHATI-781001 AND ALSO AT PLOT NO. 2B, GAURIPUR, AMINGAON, NORTH GUWAHATI-781030, ASSAM. VERSUS DYNA ROOF PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, KAMAKHYA TOWER, CHRISTIAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005, ASSAM AND ALSO AT 10TH MILE, MAWSMAI VILLAGE, G.S. ROAD, RIBHOI-793101, MEGHALAYA. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS T MORE,MS. S. TODI,MR M SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3250/2026 DYNA ROOF PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR SHRI KAMAKHAYA TOWER CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781 005 ASSAM ALSO AT 10TH MILE Page No.# 2/6 MAWSMAI CILLAGE G.S. ROAD RIBHOI-793 101 MEGHALAYA. VERSUS SAKTI STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DUGAR BHAWAN H.B. ROAD FANCY BAZAR KAMRUP GUWAHATI- 781 001 AND ALSO AT PLOT NO. 28 GAURIPUR AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI- 781 030 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA appearing for SAKTI STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Linked Case : CRP(IO)/395/2026 SAKTI STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DUGAR BHAWAN H.B. ROAD FANCY BAZAR KAMRUP GUWAHATI-781001 AND ALSO AT PLOT NO. 28 GAURIPUR AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI-781030 ASSAM VERSUS DYNA ROOF PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR KAMAKHYA TOWER CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD Page No.# 3/6 GUWAHATI- 781005 ASSAM AND ALSO AT 10TH MILE MAWSMAI VILLAGE G.S. ROAD RIBHOI- 793101 MEGHALAYA ------------ Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV appearing for DYNA ROOF PRIVATE LIMITED :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned senior counsel representing the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.3, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.784/2025 arising out of C.S. No.246/2025. 3. The respondent Dyna Roof Pvt. Ltd. produces roofing sheet by the name of Dyna Lume, Dyna Silver, Dyna Backs, Dyna Gold etc. On the other hand, the present petitioner Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. also produces Roofing sheets by the name of Dyna Coat. Both sides have their registered trademarks in respect of the products produced and sold in the market. Page No.# 4/6 4. In the meantime, Dyna Roof Pvt. Ltd. felt that the product of Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is creating confusion in the market. The respondent thought that the name Dyna Coat is similar to their products which are sold with the term “Dyna”. Therefore, Dyna Roof Pvt. Ltd. filed the commercial suit being C.S. No.246/2025 in the Commercial Court against Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. praying for permanent injunction restraining it from using the term “Dyna”. 5. Dyna Roof Pvt. Ltd. also filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 22.08.2025, the trial court passed an ex parte injunction order restraining Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. from using the term “Dyna” before the name of its product. 6. With the said ex parte order, Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. felt aggrieved. Therefore, it filed an application before the court below under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That petition is still pending for disposal. 7. On the other hand, Dyna Roof Pvt. Ltd. also filed an application before the trial court under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the CPC. This petition is also pending for disposal. 8. In spite of filing the petition under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC before the trial court, Shakti Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and propriety of the said ex parte order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No, Kamrup (M). 9. Mr. Das has pointed out that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC. Mr. Das submits that when there is a distinct provision of appeal, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In order to buttress his submission, Mr. Das has relied upon three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: Page No.# 5/6 “13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.” 11. In Mohd. Ali v. V. Jaya, (2022) 10 SCC 477, the Apex Court has held as under: “ 17. Even otherwise and as observed hereinabove, against the ex parte judgment and decree, the remedy by way of an appeal before the First Appellate Court was available. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision application under Section 115 of CPC and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court ought not to have entertained such a revision application challenging the ex parte judgment and decree. Once there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants, the High Court ought not to have entertained a writ petition or revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 12. In P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani, (2026) 7 SCC 644, the Supreme Court has held as under: “43. From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically follow that the High Court would not only discourage but desist from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of a challenge for which a separate, distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision is available under the statute concerned. Availability of an alternative civil remedy and/or under the CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power available under Article 227 of the Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.” 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 14. It is a settled principle of law that wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Page No.# 6/6 15. In the instant case, the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of ex parte injunction dated 22.08.2025, whereas an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rather, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety again the said ex parte order. This is not allowed by law. The petitioner should have filed an appeal as mentioned hereinbefore. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in law. 17. The present revision petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. The connected Interlocutory Applications being I.A.(Civil) Nos.2870/2026 and 3250/2026 also stand disposed of. The interim order, if there be any, shall stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant