GOVERDHAN BARDHAR,J. - (1.) The instant Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 being, aggrieved with the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Court No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court') in Civil Suit No.15/2010, whereby the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner defendant No.1 under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 has submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was guilty of approaching the learned court below with unclean hands. The respondent No.1/plaintiff was also guilty of causing misrepresentation in the market and trade. It is well settled proposition of law that the party who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands because the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not dispute the factum of abandonment of Trademark under No. 646637. Counsel submitted that the suppression made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is prima fade apparent and for that no evidence or trial is required. Counsel submitted that once the respondent No.1/plaintiff has abandoned the right in the impugned trademark "Kamdhenu", how the same can claim any right/user in the impugned trademark but the respondent No.1/plaintiff has wrongly claimed prior user in the impugned Trademark "Kamdhenu".
(3.) In support of his case case counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.i has placed reliance. upon following Judgments: 1. Prina Chemical Works and Ors. v. Sukhdayal and Ors., (1974) ILR Delhi 545; 2. M/s. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. v. State Bank of India and Anr., AIR 1992 Delhi 197; 3. Satish Khosla v. M/s. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. and Anr., 1998(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 646 : 1998 AD (Delhi) 927; 4. Sagar Beedi Works and Anr. v. Bharath Beedi Works and Anr., 1981 PTC 269; 5. Om Prakash Gupta v. Parveen Kumar, 2000(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 249 : 2000 PTC 326;;