( 1 ) MR. Swatantar Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, at the dutset submitted that instead of treating this petition as Revision, it be treated as an Appeal (FAO ).

( 2 ) THE point in controversy is with regard to the maintainability of this petition, The submission of the respondent bad been that the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 for vacation of the exparte injunction before the trial court, instead of approaching this Court either in revision or in appeal. Hence, neither the appeal nor the revision is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the objection, the brief fact of the case are that M/s. Bathla Cassettes Industries Private Ltd. filed a suit seeking declaration under Section 60 of the Copyright Act (iier. cinfter called as the Act) on the ground of groundless threats extended by the defendants M/s. Super cssettes Industries Ltd. (petitioner herein) and also sought injunction. The allegation of the plaintiffs in the plaint were that it was manufacturing and marketing prerecorded Audio Cassettes under its brand name LARA. Apart from punjabi, Bhojpuri, Hindi songs, its com