N. Dhinakar, J.

1. Plaintiff in C.S. No.58/03 on the file of the Original Side of the High Court, Madras, is the appellant in O.S.A. No.258/03 and the defendant in the said C.S. No.58/03 is the appellant in O.S. No.360/03. The said C.S. No.58/03 was filed by the plaintiff for passing off action against the defendant and along with the civil suit, he also filed O.A. No.95/03 for injunction, pending the suit, restraining the defendant/respondent from dealing with the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation under the trade mark “PIO-15” and “PIO-30”, which according to him are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark “PIOZ-15” and “PIOZ-30”.

2. The learned single Judge ordered notice on the said application on 28.1.03. The defendant/respondent appeared and filed his counter. He also filed O.A. No.1396/03 for issuance of notice to the plaintiff/applicant as to why he should not be prosecuted for the acts of perjury and making false statements. The learned single Judge, by a common order dated 11.7.03 dismissed both the applications. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the injunction application, held that he defendant/respondent has no reg