( 1 ) BEFORE we take note of the controversy involved in this appeal and address the same, it would be appropriate to have stock of the factual background in which the said controversy has arisen.

( 2 ) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) has filed suit CS (OS) No. 2347/2000 on the Original Side of this Court for perpetual injunction, infringement of trademark and trade-name, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, etc. against the respondent who is the defendant in the said suit (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' ). The plaintiff is stated to be the owner of trademark FINOLEX and is aggrieved by the user of trademark FINOLUX, mark adopted by the defendant. Along with the main suit, the appellant also filed I. A. No. 10903/2000 in which the appellant was granted ex-parte ad interim injunction. After receiving the summons, the defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement and reply. The case was thereafter adjourned on several occasions in order to enable the parties to arrive at a compromise. However, no compromise could be arrived at. When the matter came up for hearing on 21-3-2003, there wa