JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal from an order refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. The Plaintiff-Appellant is a mutwalli of a waqf-alal-aulad created by one Haji Lal Mohammad who had started the manufacture of Biris under the name and style of Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works or H.L.M. Biri Works. It was alleged that he has been carrying on this business for a pretty long time and his Biris have acquired a reputation of their own. He has been using a certain kind of wrapper and thin paper pasted on them which were registered under the Trade Marks Act. After the death of Haji Lal Mohammad the present Appellant has been acting as mutwalli and carrying on the business. 2. The Defendants are also manufacturers of Biris and carry on their business also at Allahabad. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs got printed labels and pasted on thin papers which were very similar to that of the Plaintiff and were likely to deceive a customer and, therefore, a suit for injunction was filed restraining the opposite parties from using that label. 3. The defence inter alia was that the Defendants were older Biri manufacturers. They had started manufacturing in the year 1919 while the Plaintiff had started his business in 1926 and since than they have been using this label. They further contended that this label was not similar in design and was not likely in any way to deceive a purchaser. 4. Along with the plaint an application for a temporary injunction was filed praying that during the pendency of this suit the Defendants may be restrained from selling their Biris with the wrappers and labels which have been impugned as infringing the rights of the Plaintiff. 5. The application came up for decision before the District Judge and he came to the finding that a good prima facie case had been made out by the Plaintiff as to his title to the trade mark of the Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works Ltd. He also came to a finding that this label and wrapper have been used by the Plaintiff since 1926 and that there were marks of great similarity between the two. In his opinion the similarity was such that an unwary or illiterate customer may not be able to distinguish the one from the other, specially when he sees the one without having the other before him and a customer can easily be deceived at the time of the purchase and may purchase one for the other. The similarity and the chances of deception were even greater in the case of label than in wrappers and that the design of the label and the wrapper was a colourable imitation of the design of the label and the wrapper of the Plaintiff and in most of the cases would deceive an unwary customer of the goods. 6. In spite of this finding the learned District Judge did not grant temporary injunction prayed for, because in his opinion, since the damages have been claimed the Plaintiff could be compensated by damages and, therefore, there was no necessity for granting an ad interim injunction. 7. The principles on which a temporary injunction should be granted have been enunciated by this Court in a case National Carbon Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar and Another, AIR 1954 All 218 . It was held there: When an interim injunction is sought during the pendency of the suit what has to be seen is, first whether a 'prima facie' case has been made out by the Plaintiff in respect of his claim, and secondly, whether the balance of convenience demands that the injunction should be issued. 8. I need not go into the details about the prima facie case because the learned District Judge himself has accepted that the Plaintiff was able to establish a prima facie case. In the above cast also there was a question whether an interim injunction should be issued or not and the learned Judges were of opinion that the balance of convenience is on the side of the Plaintiff. The first point which the Bench considered was that since the Plaintiff was a manufacturer of a long standing and is selling his goods throughout India and are sold in large number the mere fact that the Defendants have undertaken to keep an account would not be a safeguard against the possible injury in the Plaintiff's trade. 9. The same consideration will apply in this case. 9. The same consideration will apply in this case. It will not only be the profit that the other side would make but by putting his own Biris in the market with these imitated labels they will be able to capture market which the Plaintiff might loose for ever and that loss would not be possible to be made up by a decree for damages. Their Lordships approved the dictum of Sir Richard Garth C.J. in Relli and Anr. v. Fleming and Anr. ILR 3 Cal. 417 at p. 427 which are to the effect: In this particular case I do not think that their keeping an account of sales be a sufficient protection to the Plaintiffs because if the Defendants were allowed to use these marks in the market for several months in order to sell their cloth, they would become as well known in the market as importers and sellers of the cloth as the Plaintiffs; and so the very mischief which the injunction is intended to guard against would have been effected. 10. I respectfully agree with the approval of the observations made by C.J. Garth and they apply with equal force to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. In the circumstances of the case, I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and issue an injunction restraining the opposite party from using the wrappers and labels which they are using and which is similar to that of the Plaintiff's label and wrapper and an injunction shall issue against them their agents and servants to that effect. The Appellant is entitled to costs of this appeal.