Find a Lawyer

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑

---S. 54 ‑ Suit for permanent injunction‑Right to hold Industrial exhibition‑Permission to bold such exhibition granted to petitioner‑Respondent having held two previous exhibitions on said site disputing petitioner's right to hold such exhibition‑in absence of legal or contractual obligation on part of respondent and Authority granting such permission, that the site in question would not be used for holding industrial exhibition by any person or organization other than respondent, suit for permanent injunction instituted by such respondent against petitioner for using site in question for holding exhibition, held, would be wholly misconceived‑Even from averments made in plaint respondent had failed to show that peti tioner had violated respondents any legal right.

Habib v. Haji Muhammad P L D 1963 (W. P.) Kar. 1050 and Crutwell v. Lya (1810) 14 E R 129 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

---O. VII, R. 11‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54‑Permanent injunction ‑ Permission for holding Industrial Exhibition on a particular site‑Respondent having held two previous annual exhibi tions on said site‑Term "third annual"‑Use of such term by peti tioner‑Effect‑Term "third annual'', held, would refer to serial number of annual exhibitions held at disputed site‑It was immaterial which establishment held such exhibition because serial number would go on changing after every year‑Respondent should have no grievance if petitioner called industrial exhibition held in succeeding year as "Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition " Plaint showing no cause of action merited rejection in circumstances.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑ S. 115‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54‑Revisional jurisdic tion, exercise of‑Where claim of plaintiff restraining defendant from doing a particular act was not based on legal or contractual obligation, such suit, held, was not maintainable for restraining defendant from doing that particular act‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction set aside order of District Judge whereby injunction to restrain defendants was granted and restored that of Trial Court wherein plaint was rejected and application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed.

(d) Word red Phrases‑

"Goodwill" ‑ Meaning and import, stated‑Goodwill of a business is primarily connected with some place or locality and thus distinguishable from trade mark or trade name because latter may not be connected with the place of business.

Habib v. Haji Muhammad P L D 1963 (W. P.) Kar. 1050 and Crutwell v. Lya (1810) 14 E R 129 ref.

M. Bilal for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Ansari for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 5th and 6th May, 1986.

This revision petition is directed against order, dated 21‑4‑1986 of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad and has arisen out of a suit for permanent injunction instituted by the respondent against the petitioner restraining it from holding Third Annual Industrial Exhibition on the same site in Islamabad where two earlier National Industrial Exhibitions were held or in the alternative restraining the petitioner from pre‑fixing the word "THIRD ANNUAL" to the National Industrial Exhibition proposed to be held at the aforementioned site.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and‑‑ the respondent are two bodies incorporated under the provisions of section 26 of the Companies Act, 1913 (now section 42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984). One of the objects for which these bodies have been incorporated is to promote, develop etc. the economic interest of Pakistan in general and of those engaged in industry, agriculture, banking, communications, commerce, trade, and insurance etc. In 1984, the respondent with a view to promoting trade and industry in the country, held an industrial exhibition in Islamabad. Being tile first industrial exhibition held at national level in the Federal Capital, it was styled as "FIRST NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION, ISLAMABAD". Encouraged by the success of the First Annual Industrial Exhibition, the respondent organised the Second Annual Industrial Exhibition in Islamabad in 1985. While the respondent was engaged in making preparation for holding the Third Annual Industrial Exhibition in 1986, in Islamabad, the petitioner approached the Capital Development Authority and secured on lease the same site, where the earlier two exhibitions were held by the respondent for holding the Third Ann‑jai National Industrial Exhibition in the Federal Capital. According to the programme published in the newspapers, the petitioner proposed to hold the National industrial Exhibition from 10‑4‑1980 to 27‑4‑1986. The above industrial exhibition though being held for the first time by the petitioner, was styled as the Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition, 1986. The respondent challenged the petitioner's right to hold the aforementioned industrial exhibition at the site where the earlier industrial exhibitions were held under the arrangements made by the respondent. Exception was also taken to the use of the name of Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition" for the industrial exhibition proposed to be held under the arrangements of the petitioner. A suit for injunction was accordingly instituted by the respondent restraining the petitioner from holding the Third Annual Industrial Exhibition at the same site in Islamabad where the two earlier Annual National Industrial Exhibitions were held by the respondent. In the alternative, it was prayed that the petitioner be restrained from pre‑fixing the words "THIRD ANNUAL" to the proposed National Industrial Exhibition. The respondent's contention was that by holding two National Industrial Exhibitions in Islamabad, the petitioner had acquired goodwill which would be violated, if the petitioner was allowed to hold the proposed industrial exhibition in Islamabad where two earlier exhibitions were held or the petitioner is permitted to style the proposed national industrial exhibition as "1HIRD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION". Alongwith the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the respondent restraining the petitioner from holding the proposed industrial exhibition at the site earlier used by the respondent and also from pre‑fixing the words "THIRD ANNUAL" to the National Industrial Exhibition proposed to be held from 10‑4‑1986 to 27-4‑1986. The application was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had no locus standi or vested right to hold the national industrial exhibition at the site in question in Islamabad; that the respondent had no cause of action inasmuch as the petitioner had not violated any legal right of the respondent ; and that the petitioner was entitled to hold industrial exhibition in Islamabad as Islamabad territory had been excluded from the' territorial jurisdiction of the respondent ride Notification No. S. R. O. 91 (1)/85, dated 5‑2‑1985. It was also contended that the petitioner was entitled to call the proposed industrial exhibition as Third Annual Industrial Exhibition, Islamabad, as it was being held in Islamabad at the same site where the earlier industrial exhibitions were held.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court found that there was no basis for the respondent's claim that the petitioner should not hold industrial exhibition on the same site where the earlier exhibitions were held The learned trial Court also found no force in the respondent's contention that the petitioner was net entitled to call the proposed industrial exhibition as Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition because it was being held at national level and was third in succession to the earlier two industrial exhibitions. According to the learned trial Court, the averments made by the respondent in the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. While dismissing the respondent's application for temporary injunction, the learned trial Court also rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. vide its order, dated 8‑4‑1986.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Islamabad, which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and passed injunction order restraining the petitioner from pre‑fixing the words "Third Annual" to the title "National Industrial Exhibition". As the respondent did not press the other claim made in the suit that the petitioner be restrained from holding industrial exhibition at the same site where the respondent had held the earlier industrial exhibitions, the learned Additional District Judge did not remand the case to the learned trial Court, as according to him no further proceedings were necessary after the issuance of the injunction order. The learned Additional District Judge expressed the view that by holding the two earlier industrial exhibitions in Islamabad. the respondent had earned good name and built up reputation by achieving success in the said exhibitions and as such the petitioner's action by calling the industrial exhibition held under its arrangements as "Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition", injured the respondent's above right. He also observed that in case tht petitioner is allowed to call the industrial exhibition held under the arrangements of the petitioner as the Third Annual Industrial Exhibition the common man and the business community is likely to be misled as they would consider that the afore mentioned exhibition was sponsored by the respondent.

5. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge by filing the present revision petition. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in the case without setting aside the order of rejection of plaint passed by the learned trial Court under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has been found that the legal question raised in this revision petition needs further examination. The revision petition is accordingly admitted to regular hearing.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respon dent has no legal right to enforce and as such the suit instituted by it is misconceived. According to the learned counsel, the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action. The respondent has not acquired any goodwill by holding the earlier industrial exhibitions in Islamabad. There is ample material on the record to show that the industrial exhibition proposed to be held in Islamabad from 10‑4‑1986 to 27‑4‑1986 has been organised by the petitioner and as such there is no possibility that the public or the business community would be misled that the exhibition was being held under the arrangements of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other band, contends that by calling the industrial exhibition as Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition, Islamabad, the petitioner has led the common man and the business community to believe that this exhibition is being bold in continua tion of the earlier two exhibitions. By doing so, the petitioner has violated the goodwill earned by the respondent by achieving great success in the earlier exhibitions held under its arrangements.

7. It is an admitted fact that the site where the present industrial exhibition is being held is under the control and management of the Capital Development Authority, Islamabad. This site was used for holding the earlier two industrial exhibitions by the respondent. By holding the earlier two industrial exhibitions, the respondent has not acquired any legal right to bold the next industrial exhibition at the very site where the earlier exhibitions were held. The Capital Development Authority is under no legal or contractual obligation to lease out the site in question to the respondent for holding the industrial exhibitions. The main relief claimed by the respondent in the suit was that the petitioner should be restrained from holding the industrial exhibition at the site where the respondent had held the earlier industrial exhibitions. This relief was not based on any legal or contractual obligation of the petitioner. As noticed earlier, the site in respect of which injunction was sought by the respondent is under the management and control of the Capital Development Authority. In case the respondent had acquired any right or interest in the site in question and injunction was sought for restraining the petitioner from interfering with such right or interest, the appropriate coarse for the respondent was to seek injunction against the Capital Development Authority from leasing out the site in question to the petitioner for holding industrial exhibition', But, as noticed above, the Capital Development Authority was under no legal obligation to lease out the site in question to the respondent and probably it was for that reason that the Capital Development Authority was not impleaded as defendant in the suit by the respondent. Thus, in the absence of any legal or contractual obligation on Me part of the petitioner and the Capital Development Authority that the site in question shall not be used for holding industrial exhibitions by any person or organisation other than the respondent, suit for permanent injunction instituted by the respondent restraining the petitioner from using the site in question for holding industrial exhibitions was wholly misconcei ved. It was for that reason that during the hearing of appeal against the dismissal of the respondent's application for temporary injunction, statement was made on behalf of the respondent before the appellate Court that the respondent would not press the relief of injunction regarding the use of the site in question. .

8. On going through the averments in the plaint, it is noticed that the alternative relief in the form of injunction restraining the petitioner from pre‑fixing the words "Third Annual" to the title "National Industrial Exhibition" has been claimed on the basis of the respondent's right to hold industrial exhibition at the site where the earlier two exhibitions were held. It is not the respondent's case that the petitioner is not legally entitled to hold industrial exhibition in Islamabad and that the respondent alone possesses such right. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be restrained from holding industrial exhibition in Islamabad. The respondent's grievance, as noticed above, is that the petitioner should trot be allowed to use the site for holding its industrial exhibition where the respondent had held the earlier exhibitions because according to the respondent, by using the afore mentioned site, the petitioner would be violating the goodwill which the respondent has earned by successfully holding the industrial exhibitions. The term "goodwill has been defined in various legal disctionaries and lexicons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Habib v. Haji Muhammad (P L D 1963 (W. P.) Kar. 1050) where this term was considered. In this case, Lord ‑Eldon's definition given in Crutwell v. Lya ((1810) 14 E R 129) to the effect that goodwill "is nothing more than the probability that the old customers will resort to old place," was considered. While noticing the criticism against the above definition that It was too narrow because the probability was not necessarily or exclusively connected with places of business, the following observation was made .‑

"Confidence in the qualitses of a business organization or businessman and in the continued practice of supplying satisfactory goods, becomes in course of time attached to the name of that organization or businessman. This reputation is the most important element that creates the probability. Therefore, when one thinks of "goodwill" one usually thinks of its connection with the name of that business as well as of the place where it is carried on."

9. It is evident from the above discussion that goodwill of a business is primarily connected with some place or locality. It is for this reason that it is distinguishable from the trade mark or the trade name because j the latter may not be connected with the place of business. The respondent's claim in the present case is that by holding two industrial exhibitions in Islamabad successfully, the respondent has earned goodwill. This goodwill has been acquired by holding the industrial exhibition at the particular site in Islamabad. The respondent's reputation of successfully holding industrial exhibitions is in relation to the site which presently is being used by the petitioner for holding the exhibition, In other words, the respon dent's reputation or goodwill would not be affected if the industrial exhibition is held in Islamabad at a place other than the site where the respondent had held earlier exhibitions. As noticed above, the respondent has no legal or contractual right on the basis of which the petitioner may be restrained from using the old site of industrial exhibition. Thus even from the averments made in the plaint, the respondent has failed to show that the petitioner has violated the respondent's any legally right by holding industrial exhibition in Islamabad.

10. Learned counsel for the parties have argued at length as to the effect of the use of words "Third Annual" as pre‑fix to the title of "National Industrial Exhibition". It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. that with the use of the afore mentioned words, a general impression is created in the minds of the public and the business community that the industrial exhibition being held under the arrangement made by the petitioner is in fact in continuation of the earlier two industrial exhibitions held by the respondent. In the title used in the earlier two industrial exhibitions, there is no indication that the same were held by the respondent. Similarly in the title now used by the petitioner, there is nothing to suggest that this industrial exhibition is also sponsored by the respondent and that it is in continuation of its earlier two exhibitions. The words "Third Annual" only refer to the serial number of annual exhibitions held in Islamabad. It is immaterial which orginazation held these exhibitions because the serial number would go on changing after every year. The respondent, therefore, should have no grievance if the petitioner calls the industrial exhibition held in 1986 in Islamabad as "Third Annual National Industrial Exhibition, 1986".

11. After the respondent had relinquished the main relief of injunction in respect of the site where the petitioner was to hold the industrial exhibition, there was no basis for the learned Additional District Judge to grant injunction to the respondent restraining the petitioner from using the words "third Annual" as pre‑fix to the title of National Industrial Exhibition, 1986, Islamabad. Even otherwise, it was not proper on his part to dispose of tile suit finally when the case had come before him in appeal against order of rejection of plaint and dismissal of application for temporary injunction. The view taken by the learned trial Court that on the facts stated in the plaint, no cause of action was disclosed and that the plaint merited rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. is based on sound and cogent reason and is accordingly confirmed.

In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition is accepted and order dated 21‑4‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and order, dated 8‑4‑1986 of the learned trial Court rejecting the plaint and dismissing the respondent's application for temporary injunction is restored. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.

A.A. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.