(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard counsel for the parties at length. The question involved in this case is whether in the suit for injunction filed by the respondent herein alleging violation of its trade mark the division bench of the High Court should have reversed the finding of the Single Judge and granted temporary injunction.

(3) IN view of the fact that the suit is still pending and taking into consideration the nature of dispute between the parties and the state of evidence, we do not think it proper and appropriate to deal with the matter in any great detail and to express opinion on the merits of the dispute because that may prejudice the parties at the time of trial of the suit.

(4) WE are here dealing with a case where the respondent, who manufacturing a drug under the name SPASMO-PROXYVON, registered in his favour, filed a suit for injunction against the appellant herein who was manufacturing and selling a drug called SPASMO-FLAXON. The Single Judge of the Madras High court by a reasoned order vacated the ex-parte injunction in his favour which had been granted. The said decision was challenged and the division bench allowed the appeal o