Aftab Alam, J. — This is the plaintiffs appeal arising from a suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of its registered trade mark. The appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. The case of the appellant is that from the year 1945 it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of high grade coconut oil used for cooking as well as manufacturing of various toilet products under the distinctive trade mark “Shalimar”. The appellant claims to be the registered owner of the trade mark “Shalimar” in Class 03 in respect of coconut hair oil and in Class 29 in respect of all edible oils included in that class. Alleging that the respondents were marketing their product in infringement of its registered trade mark, the appellant filed a suit (OS No. 1 of 1995) before the Third Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from marketing or offering for sale edible oil products bearing the name “Shalimar” on containers, labels or wrappers, or using any name identical or deceptively similar to the appellant’s trade mark.

2. In course, of the trial, the appellant produced before the court photocopies of registration certificates under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 along with the related documents attached to the certificates. The photocopies submitted by the appellant were “marked” by the trial court as Exs. A1-A5, “subject to objection of proof and admissibility”. At the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed the suit of the appellant by judgment and order dated September 28, 1998 inter alia holding that the available evidence on record did not establish the case of the plaintiff and there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court arrived at its findings mainly because the appellant did not file the trade mark registration certificates in their original. In that connection, the trial court made the following observations :

“All the above documents i.e. Ex. A1-A5 are marked subject to objection of proof and admissible (sic admissibility) and also mention so in the deposition of PW1. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that all the above documents are xerox copies. He has also admittedly not filed legal certificate for the same.

Sec. 31 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 specifically reads as follows :

Sec. 31(1) “In all legal proceedings relating to a trade mark registered under the Act, the original registration of the trade mark and of all subsequent assignments and transmissions of the trade mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity thereof.”

Therefore the plaintiff has to file the original of the registration or the certified copies thereof. Exs. A1-A4 are xerox copies. It is well settled law that xerox copies are not admissible in evidence. Once those documents are not held admissible, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to rely on it. These documents Ex.A1-A4 are basic documents of Trade Mark and Merchandise Act.”

3. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant filed appeal (CCC Appeal No. 17 of 1999) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In that appeal, the appellant also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 (CMP No. 2972 of 2000) for accepting the originals of the trade mark registration certificates and the allied documents (of which Xerox copies were filed before the trial court) as additional evidence. A learned single judge of the High Court took up the application for additional evidence along with the hearing of the appeal. He allowed the application and together with it the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and allowing the appellant’s suit granting decree of permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents.

4. The respondents filed an intra-court appeal (LPA No. 111 of 2001) against the jud