( 1 ) THE question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether an appeal lies against an order granting review on grounds other than these mentioned in the two provisos to Rule 4 (2) of Order 47.

( 2 ) THE facts culminating in this litigation may be shortly stated. The respondent brought a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Warangal (O. S. No. 9/1/54) for a declaration that he was entitled to the exclusive user of his trade mark, which he had registered under the Trade Marks Act, representing and describing a particular brand of beedies manufactured by him. The basis of the action was that the defendant (appellant) was closely copying this trade mark and using it as his own with slight changes and thereby causing considerable loss of trade to the plaintiffs beedi business.

( 3 ) THE trial of the suit commenced in the beginning of 1956 and after two witnesses were examined for the plaintiff, including, the plaintiff and some documents were marked on his behalf, it was adjourned to 14-4-1956 for further evidence. On the adjourned date, as plaintiffs witnesses were not present, the case was adjourned to 22-6-1956 at the request of the Counsel for the plaintiff. What