S.K.Mahajan - (1.) Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and for rendition of account under the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act and the Copyright Act. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was registered proprietor of the trade mark "JAMCO" in respect of the radio receiving sets, transis- torised radios, typewriters and other electric goods. It is alleged that the defendant and its associate had started manufacturing and trading in car stereos, typewriters, radio transistors etc. under the trade mark JAMCO and under the trade and firm name Jamco Radios. This act of the defendant in using the trade mark Jamco and adopting the trade and firm name Jamco Radios was stated to be an infringement of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, therefore sought injunction against the defendant restraining him from using the aforesaid trade mark and for rendition of accounts.
(2.) Defendant is a partnership firm. On being served, written statement was filed by the Firm. The same was signed by one of its partners namely Kul Bhushan Jain. Kul Bhushan Jain is the brother of the proprietor of the plaintiff-Firm. The case of the defendant in the written statement was that both the plaintiff and the defendant-firm was using the trade mark JAMCO for their goods. It was also stated that both the firms had common stocks and used to issue bills from each other's Firm. It is stated that it was only in 1983 that Mr. Anil Bhushan Jain, proprietor of the plaintiff-Firm by playing fraud got the trade mark registered in his name. It is further submitted that the Firm Jamco Radios was registered by way of declaration by the defendant before the Sub-Registrar's Office by the same advocate who had acted as an advocate of the plaintiff as well. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the user of the trade mark JAMCO and the Firm name Jamco Radios by the defendant and the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the suit. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 was filed for ad-interim injunction; This application was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 11/11/1998 and no appeal against the same has been filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) The petitioner who also claimed to be a partner of the defendant-firm had in the meantime filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit. Applicant is the father of the both the proprietor of the plaintiff as well as the other partner of the defendant. This application under Order 1 Rule 10Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.;