VEERENDER SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 8th October, 2012, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ application, praying for the following reliefs : "a. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 8th October, 2012 ( Annexure-13) and directed to the learned trial court to stay the proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the application for registrations of trade mark of both the parties is pending before the Registrar, Trade Mark. b. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioner, may also be passed in favour of petitioner
(2.) Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that petitioner-defendant while resisting the claim of the plaintiff-respondent who is allegedly using the trade mark of " M/s. Khandelwal Dhaba", prayed for stay of the proceedings before the court below in suit No. 24/2010, pending before the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track No. 6), Jaipur City, Jaipur. The petitioner's application instituted under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999'), has been declined by order dated 8th October, 2012. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that both the partied to the suit proceedings have also preferred applications before the Registrar, Trade Marks, in view of contemplation under Section 27 (2) of the Act of 1999.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that the order made by the court below dated 8th October 2012, declining the application of the petitioner, preferred under Section 124 of the Act of 1999, suffers with gross illegality for the proceeding on the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent ought to have been stayed in view of pendency of the proceedings on the same issue for registration of the trade mark "M/s. Khandelwal Dhaba" before the Registrar, Trade Marks. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.: (2001) 5 SCC 95.;