ORDER :

1. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark as well as the alleged endeavour of the respondent to pass of its goods as that of the appellant by trading the same product under the trademark PACHMOLA. Accounts and costs were also sought for. The suit was contested by the respondent. Interim orders were enduring for the benefit of the appellant by an ad interim order. However, after hearing both the parties the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was dismissed and interim orders vacated vide impugned order dated 6.10.2009. It is this order which is assailed before us. No interim orders were granted at the stage of admission of the appeal and as a result parties have continued to trade in their respective products.

2. Though more than three (3) years have elapsed, the suit has not progressed much for trial. We have perused the original suit record and it shows that the first witness of the appellant is yet to be cross-examined though the affidavit of evidence were filed and now some witnesses are sought to be summoned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant whom we heard at great length, fairly concedes that there is no