CMA/524/2025 of M/s. Santosh Dhaba Exclusive Vs M/s. The Santosh Original on 25 August 2026

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Ashok Ram Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Agarwal Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri VenkataRamana P., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 7, Sri Dr.Donti Reddy Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.R.V.R.Associates appearing for respondent No.2, Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 6 and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

GPK,J

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the docket proceedings dated 23.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.1681 of 2025 in O.S.No.486 of 2025 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.489 of 2025, instituted seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their men etc. from advertising or in any manner using in respect of their Restaurant, hotel, Eatery a deceptively similar Trade Mark ‘Santosh’ or any other deceptively similar Trade Mark in any media, online platform etc. or in any other manner of Services and thereby infringing the appellant’s registered Trade Mark.

4. Pending adjudication of the suit, the appellant filed I.A.No.1681 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking for grant of temporary injunction, and the same was initially granted by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29.10.2025 and the same was extended from time to time.

GPK,J

5. In the meantime, the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court arose. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the suit involved a commercial dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. The said application was heard and, on 05.12.2025, after written arguments were filed by the parties, it was reserved for orders and the matter was posted to 15.12.2025.

6. On 15.12.2025, the order on the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was not ready and the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2025 for orders. The proceedings sheet records: “Orders not made ready, posted to 17.12.2025 for orders.” On 17.12.2025, the matter was again adjourned and posted to 23.12.2025. The appellant contends that, during this period, applications seeking extension of the interim injunction were presented before the learned Trial Court.

7. Meanwhile, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad issued a Circular requiring cases relating to commercial disputes falling within the specified pecuniary jurisdiction to be GPK,J

transferred to the competent Commercial Court. The learned Trial Court, referring to the said Circular and the judgment in C.R.P.No.1932 of 2025, came to the conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and directed its transfer to the competent Commercial Court.

8. Accordingly, by docket order dated 23.12.2025, the learned Trial Court recorded that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the interlocutory application, directed transfer of the suit to the Principal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad, and further recorded that no extension petition had been filed by the petitioner. On that basis, the ex parte injunction granted on 29.10.2025 was vacated.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, insofar as it vacated the interim injunction, the appellant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Commercial Court and renumbered as C.O.S.No.86 of 2025, while I.A.No.1681 of 2025 was renumbered as I.A.No.1659 of 2025.

GPK,J

10. This Court, by judgment dated 23.06.2026, disposed of the Appeal, inter alia observing that the material then available on record did not disclose any order extending the temporary injunction beyond 15.12.2025. This Court also proceeded on the basis that, upon issuance of the Circular, the transferor Court lacked authority to proceed further with the matter. The docket order dated 23.12.2025 was accordingly set aside and the parties were directed not to take adverse or coercive steps against each other pending consideration of I.A.No.1659 of 2025 by the Commercial Court.

11. The appellant challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.24442 of 2026. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 24.07.2026, observed that although there was nothing in the material then placed before the High Court indicating extension of the injunction beyond 15.12.2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had brought to its notice an endorsement of the word “Allowed” appearing on the order/application dated 15.12.2025 with the signature of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge. As the respondents disputed the GPK,J

effect of the said endorsement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no clarity as to whether the application seeking extension had in fact been allowed. The matter was therefore remitted to this Court to examine that aspect after calling for the records and proceedings from the transferee Court and obtaining an appropriate report from the transferor Court.

12. Therefore, in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has perused the records and proceedings received from the transferee Commercial Court, the report/records of the transferor Court and the relevant S.R. Register placed before this Court.

13. Sri Ashok Ram Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.R.Sunil Kumar and Sri Agarwal Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the certified copies obtained from the Hyderabad Civil Court’s Central Copying Establishment conclusively establish that the appellant had diligently filed applications under Section 151 CPC for extension GPK,J

of the ad interim injunction (29.10.2025) on every date of hearing without fail, whereas the respondent No.2 filed an application vide I.A.No.1652 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the suit on the ground that valuation of the suit is beyond Rs.3,00,000/- and hence, the subject matter falls within the purview of ‘Commercial Dispute’ nature and sought for return of the suit so as to present the same before the proper forum having jurisdiction i.e. Commercial Court, that I.A.No.1652 of 2025 was reserved for orders on 05.12.2025 and was directed to be listed on 15.12.2025 for orders by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

14. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per the practice of the Trial Courts, once any application or suit is reserved for orders/judgment, regardless of specific net date given or not, the entire record bundle is retained in the chambers of the learned Presiding Officer; that even on 15.12.2025, the entire bundle was in the Chamber of the learned Presiding Officer and the matter was not called in the Court; as such, the appellant mentioned the matter on the Bench and sought for extension by filing an GPK,J

application across the Bench and thereafter the SR number will be provided.

15. Learned Senior Counsel asserted that on 15.12.2025, extension petition was filed across the Bench vide S.R.No.8936 of 2025, basing on the same, the learned Judge made a judicial endorsement ‘Orders/Allowed’ along with signature/initials/date, and the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2025 for orders in I.A.No.1652 of 2025.

16. It is contended that on 17.12.2025, the matter was not called on the Bench and the file was in Chambers of the learned Presiding Officer by reason of orders in I.A.No.1652 of 2025 being reserved for orders, and as such, the appellant once again mentioned the matter on the Bench by filing an extension petition vide SR No.9004 of 2025, upon which, the said extension petition was endorsed as ‘Allowed’ with signatures/initials/date, thereby extending the ad interim injunction order, but the learned Trial Court did not give any direction for next date till the impugned order came to be passed on 23.12.2025. It is contended that since GPK,J

there was no direction on 17.12.2025 with regard to the next date, as a precautionary measure and abundant caution, the appellant had filed an application for extension on 18.12.2025 vide SR No.9050 of 2025.

17. Learned Senior Counsel asserts that the learned Trial Court took up the matter suo motu on 23.12.2025 without any notice to either party and passed the matter vacating the interim injunction erroneously noting that no extension applications were filed, and the said order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer had become functus Officio as on the date of passing of the order as well from the date of the Circular i.e. 04.12.2025 and 11.12.2025 issued by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He therefore contends that the order passed on 23.12.2025 vacating the interim order is erroneous since the learned Transferor Court, by virtue of the Circular of the learned Chief Judge, ceased to hold the jurisdiction to entertain the application and instead of transferring the matter by extending the interim injunction, erroneously vacated the same, which action, it is contended as arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

GPK,J

18. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court to the docket proceedings dated 15.12.2025, wherein on the first page of the petition filed by the learned counsel for the appellant in I.A.__of 2025 in I.A.No.1681 of 2025 in O.S.No.489 of 2025 filed under Section 151 CPC, the word “Orders” as well as “Allowed” was reflected on 15.12.2025, and contends that admittedly the order was extended and vacation of the order passed by the learned Trial Court erroneously without jurisdiction, and thereby sought to allow the Appeal.

19. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 7 contended that the appellant filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.07.2026, whereas on 09.07.2026, a docket order was passed by the learned Commercial Court in I.A.No.939 of 2026 in I.A.No.1659 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.86 of 2025 upon petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to extend the interim orders dated 29.10.2025 wherein at second page, it was recorded that it is relevant to refer to the observations of this Court made in para-20 of the order dated 23.06.2026 to the effect that ‘the

GPK,J

material available on record does not disclose any order extending the temporary injunction beyond 15.12.2025. Consequently, prima facie, the interim order of temporary injunction ceased to operate after 15.12.2025’.

20. It is also contended that upon perusal of the docket order dated 17.12.2025 and 23.12.2025 in I.A.No.1681 of 2025 of the XI Additional Chief Judge, it is found that there was no extension of ad interim ex parte interim orders, and after 15.12.2025 interim orders are not extended and there was no extension of interim order as on 17.12.2025 or 23.12.2025 even to restore the position as it stood after setting aside the docket order dated 23.12.2025 by the Hon’ble High Court. The learned Commercial Court also referred to the order of this Court dated 23.06.2026 to the effect that pending consideration of I.A.No.1659 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.86 of 2026 by the Commercial Court, both parties are directed not to take any adverse or coercive steps against each other. In view of the above direction, the learned Commercial Court held that both parties are directed to obey the orders of the Hon’ble High Court GPK,J

and to cooperate with the Court in expeditious disposal of I.A.No.1659 of 2026.

21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 7 contended that even though the SLP is filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.07.2026, the order dated 09.07.2026 disposing of I.A.No.939 of 2026 filed seeking extension of ad interim ex parte order dated 29.10.2025 was not placed on record before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order dated 09.07.2026 has been assailed by way of appropriate proceedings, and that the appellant preferred the SLP without challenging the order dated 09.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.939 of 2026 in I.A.No.1659 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.86 of 2026, which clearly establish that the appellant is resorting to forum hunting ignoring the judicial hierarchy, and it amounts to gross misuse of the legal process.

22. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the attitude of the appellant is glaringly clear that he wants to get the orders dated 09.07.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.939 of 2026 nullified without challenging it directly, which amounts to GPK,J

playing fraud upon this Court so also upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

23. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the docket proceedings dated 15.12.2025 indicates that the petition for extension of the interim order was placed on record of the learned Transferor Court only on 16.12.2025 under the SR.

24. It is further contended that the impugned order indicates that it is a comprehensive order passed in the suit, in I.A.Nos.1748 and 1681 of 2025 and the reasoning given for passing the orders in all the above matters is one and the same, and that the entire order has to be read in whole and not in piece meal manner. He therefore seeks to dismiss the Appeal.

25. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions in Raja Soap Factory and others Vs. S.P. Shantharaj and others1, M/s.EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and others 1AIR 1965 SC 1449 2(2020) 12 SCC 667

GPK,J

Vs. Ananta Saha and others3and IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association Vs. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers4.

26. On the other hand, Sri Dr.Donti Reddy Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, initially submits that the contemporaneous judicial record, when it is read as a whole, unequivocally establishes that the ex parte ad interim injunction was operative only upto 15.12.2025 and was not extended thereafter, that the docket orders in I.A.No.1681 of 2025 contain no order of extension of ex parte ad interim injunction from 15.12.2025 onwards; that the SR register disclose that the alleged extension application was received and registered only on 16.12.2025 and not on 15.12.2025; and that the learned Commercial Court, upon examining the relevant docket orders, has also categorically recoded that there was no extension of interim order after 15.12.2025; and thus, there is no contemporaneous judicial order evidencing any extension of the injunction on 15.12.2025.

3(2011) 5 SCC 142 42025 SCC OnLine SC 1756

GPK,J

27. It is further contended that the docket proceedings records no extension of the ex parte ad interim order from 15.12.2025 until 23.12.2025 and that the certified copies of the docket proceedings annexed to I.A.No1659 of 2025 filed by respondent No.2 do not disclose any such extension.

28. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the Register containing the S.R. Details, there is no extension application filed by the appellant on 15.12.2025.

29. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court to the documents filed by the appellant and contends that every petition filed under Section 151 CPC reflects the word ‘Allowed’ along with relevant documents, whereas the left side, the SR number also reflects showing the dates on which the applications have been entertained. Similarly, learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the docket proceedings dated 14.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 18.11.2025, 21.11.2025, 24.11.2025, 28.11.2025, 01.11.2025 and 05.12.2025, and contends that upon perusal of the petition filed on 15.12.2025 at the right GPK,J

hand column, the words ‘Orders” and “Allowed” are reflecting and on the left side, the SR number as ‘8936 dated 16.12.2015’ has been entered.

30. It is contended that the appellant’s attempt to rely upon the date mentioned in the application despite the S.R. record showing its receipt and registration on 16.12.2025, creates a misleading impression as to the actual date on which the application was presented before the Court and as such, the appellant cannot, merely mentioning 15.12.2025 as the date of application, treat an application which was actually received and registered on 16.12.2025 as having been filed on 15.12.2025.

31. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 relied upon the decision in Madupu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and others Vs. B.Suryanarayana Murthy and others5 and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

52023 (2) ALD 144 (TS)S

GPK,J

32. The learned transferee Court passed orders on 09.07.2026 disposing of I.A.No.939 of 2026, which is filed seeking extension of the ad interim ex parte orders dated 29.10.2025

33. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 6 contended that the appeal itself is not maintainable; that no suit is pending before the Court while Appeal is against vacating of interim order. It is contended that interlocutory injunction orders are in aid of the main suit proceeding and they are not independent of suit proceedings, and hence, when there is no suit, nothing remains to be adjudicated as held in Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.6

34. Learned counsel further contended that Section 107(2) CPC stipulate that the appellate Court shall have the same powers as that of the original Court, that when original court has held it lacks jurisdiction and said order remained unchallenged by way of appeal, then the appellate Court lacks jurisdiction and needless to say that when court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot decide anything 6(2012) 9 SCC 552

GPK,J

and if it decides, it is a nullity, needs no elaboration. It is also contended that for an appeal to lie under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, there has to be an order in the eye of law, as by termination of suit vide O.S.No.489 of 2025 before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, all interlocutory orders stood automatically nullified by operation of law, once there is no order subsisting in the eye of law, for it to be challenged by way of appeal.

35. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to get the record, get the report, hear the parties and decide afresh, and as such, the additional record is not merely for answering an isolated factual question and it is intended to enable the High Court to correctly adjudicate the matter that was before it. He therefore pleaded that the present Appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

36. Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, while reiterating the submissions made on behalf of other respondents, contended that the present proceeding is nothing but to extract the valuable time of the Hon’ble Court.

GPK,J

37. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made as above and perused the record thoroughly.

38. On being mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of memo, the matter was listed before this Court on 12.08.2026; in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 24.07.2026, in SLP(C) No.24442 of 2026, records as well as reports from the respective Courts are called for and directed the matter to be listed on 17.08.2025. However, since the records were not received, the matter was directed to be posted to 18.08.2026. On 18.08.2026, since the SR Register along with the report of the Transferor Court was received and the record of Transferee Court was not received, the matter was directed to be listed on 20.08.2026. On 20.08.2026, the record as well as report from the Transferee Court was also received and placed on record.

39. Upon perusal of the report submitted by the Transferor Court i.e. XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 14.08.2026, it is seen that upon verification of the SR Register GPK,J

2025, the following petitions/Memos under Section 151 CPC in I.A.No.1681 of 2025 in O.S.No.489 of 2025 were filed as under: SL. No SR.NO Date Remarks

1. 16.12.2025 Petition filed U/s. 151 CPC

2. 17.12.2025 Petition filed U/s. 151 CPC

3. 17.12.2025 Memo in O.S. No. 489/2025

4. 18.12.2025 Petition filed U/s. 151 CPC

5. 19.12.2025 Petition filed U/s. 151 CPC

6. 24.12.2025 Out of order U/s. 57 CPC

7. 24.12.2025 Petition filed U/s. 151 CPC

40. The report was duly verified with the SR Register, where under on 15.12.2025, there was no reference of O.S.No.489 of 2025. However, on 16.12.2025, vide SR No.8936 annexure to O.S.No.489 of 2025, reflecting I.A.No.1681 of 2025 is registered. The same was continued on 17.12.2025, 18.12.2025 and 19.12.2025.

41. The report submitted by the transferee court, Principal Special Judge in the cadre of District Judge for trial and disposal of

GPK,J

Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad, dated 19.08.2025 reads as under: “I further submit that this Court has received the file in OS.No. 489/2025 from the file of XI Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by transfer on 27.12.2026 and in this Court it was re-numbered as COS.No. 86/2025 on 29.12.2026. On verification of the docket proceedings in IA.No. 1681/2025 in OS.No. 489/2025 on the file of XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Cour Hyderabad from 29.10.2025 onwards, it shows that on 29.10.2025 the Presiding Officer in the transferor Court has granted ad-interim injunction till 14.11 2025. Subsequently, as per docket proceedings, the interim order was extended from 14.11.2025 to 17.11.2025, from 17.11.2025 to 18.11.2025, 18.11.2025 to 21.11.2025, and from 21.11.2025 to 24.11.2025. I further submit that on 24.11.2025 the counsel for the petitioner has filed a petition extension of interim injunction orders till next date of hearing and the same was allowed but it is not reflecting on the docket proceedings. The petition was posted to 28.11.2025 for hearing. On 28.11.2025 the interim order was extended to 01.12.2025. On 01.12.2025 the counsel for the petitioner has filed a petition for extension of interim GPK,J

injunction order but no order was passed by the Presiding Officer of the transferor Court on the extension petition vide SR No. 8525/2025, dt.01.01.2025 and the matter was posted to 5.12.2025 for further hearing. I further submit that on 5.12.2025 the interim injunction was extended and posted to 15.12.2025. On 15.12.2025 the counsel for the petitioner has filed a petition for extension of interim injunction order till next date of hearing and the same was endorsed as "allowed" by the presiding Officer of the transferor Court but the same is not reflecting on the docket proceedings the matter was posted to 17.12.2025 for orders. On 17.12.2025 the petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner for extension of interim injunction orders and the same was endorsed as allowed" and but the same is not reflected in docket proceedings of IA and the mater was posted 23.12.2025.”

42. It is necessary to observe here that the appellant's relied upon the application bearing S.R.No.8936 and, more particularly, upon the endorsement “Allowed” appearing thereon with the initials/signature of the learned Presiding Officer. The report submitted by the Transferor Court also states that the said GPK,J

endorsement and records that the application dated 15.12.2025 was endorsed as “Allowed”, though the same was not reflected in the docket proceedings of the interlocutory application.

43. The record placed before this Court shows that the learned Trial Court had initially granted the ex parte ad interim injunction on 29.10.2025 and thereafter extended the same from time to time. On 05.12.2025, the interim order was extended by posting the matter to 15.12.2025. Thus, the interim order was undoubtedly operative up to 15.12.2025. The controversy is only with regard to its continuation beyond 15.12.2025.

44. Upon perusal of the docket proceedings dated 15.12.2025, it is seen that the “orders were not made ready and the matter was posted to 17.12.2025 for orders”. Significantly, the main docket proceedings do not record any extension of the interim injunction on that date. Similarly, on 17.12.2025, the matter was posted to 23.12.2025, but there is again no corresponding docket entry recording extension of the interim injunction.

GPK,J

45. The appellant seeks to overcome the absence of such an entry by relying upon the application dated 15.12.2025 bearing S.R.No.8936 and the endorsement “Allowed” thereon. It is contended that the application was presented across the Bench when the main file was in the Chambers of the learned Presiding Officer and that the endorsement made thereon constituted a judicial order extending the injunction.

46. However, the said contention has to be considered along with the contemporaneous official record. The S.R. Register does not contain an entry relatable to the said application on 15.12.2025 and records its registration only on 16.12.2025. Further, the endorsement “Allowed”, though appearing on the application, is not reflected in the proceedings of I.A.No.1681 of 2025. The subsequent proceedings also do not indicate the period for which the alleged extension was granted or contain any direction that the injunction would continue until the next date of hearing or until further orders.

GPK,J

47. This assumes significance because the interim injunction had earlier been extended from time to time by specific orders of the learned Trial Court. However, after 15.12.2025, there is no corresponding order in the main proceedings recording its further extension or specifying the period for which it was to continue. The endorsement “Allowed” on the application, therefore, has to be considered along with the contemporaneous proceedings and cannot be read in isolation.

48. The subsequent applications relied upon by the appellant also does not show any extension of the ad interim order. The fact that further applications for extension were presented on 17.12.2025 and 18.12.2025, even according to the appellant, was by way of abundant caution.

49. However, there is no corresponding operative order in the main docket extending the injunction. Thus, the subsequent applications, by themselves, cannot establish that the injunction had already been extended on 15.12.2025.

GPK,J

50. Therefore, it is deemed that the orders are not extended. The only mistake committed by the Trial Court is that instead of using the word ‘vacated’, it ought to have written ‘interim order not extended’ or ‘expired’.

51. After careful perusal of the Register and reports of both the Courts below, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no existing ad interim ex parte injunction order on 15.12.2025, as apparent on the face of record, there was no extension application on that particular day and there was no endorsement on the docket as regards extension.

52. It is also pertinent to observe that the order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the learned Transferee Court, wherein the very issue of continuation of the interim injunction was considered and it was observed that the injunction was not extended beyond 15.12.2025. This aspect was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

GPK,J

53. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit or on the merits of the pending application for interim relief, which shall be considered independently by the competent Court.

54. It is clarified as noted above and the CMA is accordingly is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 25.08.2026 VSV/GJ

GPK,J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.524 of 2025

Date: -08-2026

VSV/GJ