( 1 ) IN this suit seeking various reliefs on the averments that defendant has and is continued to infringe the plaintiff s copyright in the registered design "konoha", the plaintiff has moved the present application seeking interim relief of appointment of receiver, attachment before judgement and temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1, its servants and agents and any other person on its behalf from using the impugned design in any way for manufacturing of figured glasses and/or any design which infringes the registered design in whole or in part of the plaintiff till the final disposal of the suit. In the arguments only relief of temporary injunction, as mentioned above, has been pressed.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on its business, inter alia, of manufacturing, selling and dealing with sheet glass, figured glass, and other sorts of flat glass and defendant No. 1, which is also an incorporated company, also carries on the business of manufacture and sale of figured glass. Defendant No. 2 is the authority for registration of designs appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is averred that one of the unique design/pattern/ornamentation applied to some such glass manufactured by the plaintiff is known by the name of "konoha" and this design was registered with effect from April 24, 1987, vide registered design No. 158266 in Class IV under the Classification of Goods in the Fourth Schedule of the Design Rules, 1933, framed under the Designs Act, 1911. It is claimed that the plaintiff being the exclusive owner of the copyright in the said design duly registered in its favour which stands renewed and extended for five years now with effect from October 31, 1991, has been manufacturing and marketing the figured glass by applying the said design on the said glass sheets and has acquired a lot of business and reputation for its aforesaid goods in the market since 1987.

( 3 ) IT is averred that in or about December 1992 the plaintiff learnt that defendant No. 1 had also started manufacturing and selling glass sheets with the similar or deceptively similar design of the plaintiff and the plaintiff sent a letter to defendant No. 1 requiring it not to indulge in such infringement of the registered design of the plaintiff but with no effect as in or about May 1993 the plaintiff found out that defendant No. 1 has been continuously infringing the plaintiff s said registered design and was marketing its goods under the name of "dhoop CHAON". It has been averred that visual comparison of the plaintiff s designed glass sheet carrying the registered design "konoha" and defendant No. 1 s designed glass sheet carrying the purported design "dhoop CHAON" clearly reveals and establishes that the design of defendantno. 1 is an infrngement of the plaintiff s registered design. So, the plaintiff claims that defendantno. 1 has caused considerable loss to the plaintiff s business and thus, the plaintiff claims Rs. 6,00,000. 00 for the present as damages besides seeking other reliefs including permanent injunction.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 contested the suit as well as the application pleading that the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction in this case as the plaintiff has suppressed a material fact from this court of his having sent a letter to defendant No. 1 which is dated December 2, 1992, in which it was disclosed that plaintiff is not the originator of the design in question which, in fact, has been allegedly developed by a company in Tokyo and the plaintiff has acquired some rights from that company. It is further pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as defendant No. 1 has already filed a petition bearing No. CO 2 of 1993 on March 16, 1993, seeking cancellation of the registration of the aforesaid design in favour o