( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of plaintiff s application (IA 3830/97) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction as well as defendant s application (IA 4408/97) under Order 39, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of interim injunction was issued in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. On 30. 4. 1997, an ex parte injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff which order was modified to the extent that defendant was permitted to market and sell its shoes with its upper portion design even though it may be similar to the upper portion design of the plaintiff s shoes registered with No. 168908 under Designs Act. However, the defendant was directed not to have the same design on the sole of its shoes as that of plaintiff s shoes.

( 2 ) MR. S. K. Bansal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that once the registration of design was in his favour, injunction has to follow as a natural corollary. He has further contended that no case has been made out by the defendant that there was a prior publication of the design which was registered in favour of the plaintiff. Relying on Castrol India Ltd. v. Tide Water Oil Co. (II)