JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The order of temporary injunction passed ex-parte was sought to be vacated at the behest of the defendant/respondent on an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging not only that the application for temporary injunction contained misleading statements but also on the ground of suppression of material facts. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the instant suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs/appellants’ registered label mark “MAJDUR BIRI” by using the mark which is identical and deceptively similar thereto and also decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, stocking, offering for sale Bidis under the mark “MAZDOOR” or any other trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the appellant’s mark “MAJDUR.”

2. It is averred in the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction that the appellant no. 1 is a leading manufacturer, trader and merchant of the Biris under the trade name and style of “MAJDUR BIRI No. 444” wherein the numerical No. “444” denotes the high quality of B