( 1 ) ADMIT. We heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate for theappellant and Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned senior advocate for the respondent and weretaken through the record.

( 2 ) THIS appeal by appellants (plaintiffs) is directed against the order dated 1 7/09/1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on an applicationfiled under Order 39, Rules 1and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for shortcpc) holding that the respondent (defendant) was neither guilty of piracy nor copyingof the disc of appellants being distributed as a free collectible with their product "laysand Cheeto Chips", nor there was any unfair or dishonest competition on the part ofthe respondent, in distributing such discs with their product uncle Chipps : and onlyrestraining the respondent from distributing free collectibles, in the shape of rounddisc having groove/notch or grooves/notches.

( 3 ) THE focus of the present case is "advertising/promotional campaign" on T. V. under which the plaintiffs offered a TAZO disc inside each packet, with which childrencould play some games, claimed to be unique to them.

( 4 ) APPELLANTS (plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking a decree of per