Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.35 seconds)

Dharampal And Others vs Devraj on 29 October, 2025

A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 which has been discussed in detail hereinabove, would show that positive evidence had been led by the plaintiff to show that the defendants deserved to be injuncted even from using the word "Vimal Wadhwa Saree Palace" as the word "Vimal" was deceptively similar to the word "Bimal". The said witness was duly cross- examined. Due opportunities were given to both the parties to lead their evidence in support of the said issue and thus, full trial had taken place on the said issue. The trial court, after considering the entire oral evidence and the documents on record, including the report of the Local Commissioner and the photographs produced by the Local Commissioner, had decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. This Court also, after having reconsidered the entire evidence and documents on record, is of the view that the finding on the recasted issue no.1 deserves to be upheld. In view of the above and without there being any challenge to the order recasting of the issue, at the appropriate stage, it is not now open to the appellants to say that grant of injunction qua Vimal Wadhwa Saree Palace was not in issue during trial or could not be granted. Moreover, it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.3938 of 2009, titled as "Amrit Lal and another Vs. Sadhu Ram and another", the SLP against which has been dismissed on 15.02.2016 (SLP No.2624/2016), that if anything had been done by a party after the filing of the suit, then, the relief granted to the plaintiff could be modified and even in case a suit for permanent injunction has been filed, if 39 of 43 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 00:54:02 ::: RFA-1291-2022 (O&M) [40] any act takes place during the pendency of the suit, then, the Court could even grant mandatory injunction although no amendment had been made in the plaint to claim mandatory injunction. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Bahl - Full Document
1