( 1 ) THIS third application under Order 39, Rule 4 has been moved for vacating the injunction order passed on 10th November, 1995 directing the defendant not to use trade mark borosil .

( 2 ) I have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties in respect of the following points:

1. Whether this Court while disposing of the application under Order 39, Rule 4 could reopen and modify the earlier order ?

2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code ?

( 3 ) EARLIER by order dated 10th November, 1995 not only the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was allowed but also two Application Nos. 2303/95 and 4967/95 filed by the defendants were dismissed.

3. 1. First the undisputed facts. It has been very fairly conceded by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiffs are neither manufacturing nor holding any registration of trade mark Borosil in relation to Mixer-cum-grinder, Juicer, Food Processors and Washing Machine. According to plaintiffs own case they are just manufacturers of kitchenwares, tablewares, ovenwares, scientific laboratory, industrial, pharmaceutical and other technical