2007 PLP 1640 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

In the circumstances in which this appeal has arisen we would not be required to state the detailed facts. Suffice it to say that on 24-5-2004, the appellants filed 'a suit against the respondent praying the following reliefs:-- (a) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant perpetually from infringing and violating plaintiff's Patents Nos.132822, 134527 and 134842 and from manufacturing or making and/or importing and/or packing and/or formulating and/or marketing and/or launching and/or stocking for sale and/or offering for sale and/or selling any products containing Paroxetine Hydrochloride itself and/pr Paroxetine Hydrochloride in the form of any of its various novel crystalline forms and/or Paroxetine Hydrochloride with addition of any other pharmaceutical ingredient/element/compound or any other variation thereof in any form or in any manner and under the trademark Taxopar or any other name whatsoever which is manufactured and/or formulated by using or adopting, in any manner, any process identical to or equivalent to or substantially similar to or incorporating the essential steps of any of the process(es) and formulation(s)/ compositions the subject-matter of claims of Pakistani Patents Nos.132822, 134842 and 134527; (b) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant perpetually from using in any manner and selling Paroxetine Hydrochloride itself and/or Paroxetine Hydrochloride in the form of any of its various novel crystalline forms and/or Paroxetine Hydrochloride with addition of any other Pharmaceutical ingredient/element/compound containing products or any colourable imitation of Plaintiffs novel crystalline forms of Paroxetine Hydrochloride products which is manufactured and/or formulated by using or adopting in any manner any process identical to or equivalent to or substantially similar to or incorporating the essential steps of any of the processes and formulations/compositions subject-matter of claims of Pakistani Patents Nos.132822, 134842 and 134527, manufacturing or making, formulating, selling, supplying, stocking, importing, exporting, offering for sale, Passing Off, advertising or otherwise enabling others to infringe or Pass Off, offer for sale or use and sell defendant's Paroxetine Hydrochloride Products and/or Paroxetine Hydrochloride in the form of any of its various novel crystalline forms and/or Paroxetine Hydrochloride with addition of any other pharmaceutical/ingredient/ element/compound products in any form or in any manner and by any name whatsoever which is in infringement of the claims of Patents Nos.132822, 134842 and 134527. (c) a money decree against the defendant for payment of compensation for the loss and damage for injury the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs; (d) costs of the suit may also be awarded; and (e) grant any such further/additional other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The respondent was served and put in appearance. In the first instance on 6-7-2004 it was stated on behalf of the respondent that it does not admit the contents of the plaint but has neither infringed nor will infringe the patents rights of the appellants. However, learned trial Court directed the respondent to file a written statement. This was done. Thereafter on 27-3-2006, the learned counsel for the respondent made the following statement:-- Learned counsel for the appellant in response made the following statement: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit for the reasons that in view of the said statement made on behalf of the respondent the cause of action ceased to have exist, however, at the same time a direction was issued to the respondent to remain bound by the said statement of its counsel. A decree sheet was accordingly drawn on 31-3-2006.

3. This R.F.A. was admitted to regular hearing on 19-12-2006 and notice was issued to the respondent. In response the learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. He states that he will be having no objection if the suit is, decreed in the light and to the extent stated in his statement. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand states that he had already stated that in case the suit is decreed as prayed in paras.31.1 (a) and (b) above, the other reliefs will not be pressed. This RFA is accordingly partly allowed inasmuch as the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants is decreed against the defendant respondent in the light of the statement made by its learned counsel and as also the statement made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants on 27-3-2006. The relief in para. 31.1 of the plaint at sub paras.(a) and (b) shall stand granted while the other reliefs shall stand refused and suit dismissed to the said extent. Office to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. H.B.T./S-57/L Order accordingly.