Gurdev Singh ( 1 ) DURING the pendency of proceedings on an application for registration of trade mark "sun brand Dye", the petitioner S. C. Sharma and Company took opposition proceedings, in the course of which they made an application on 19th July, 1961, to the Assistant Registrar, of Trade Marks for admission of certain documents as additional evidence under rule 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, and also for leading further evidence to prove those documents. This application having been rejected by the Assistant Registrar on 20th September, 1961, Messrs S. C. Sharma and Company have come up in appeal. ( 2 ) I doubt very much if the appeal which purports to have been preferred under sub-section (2) of section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 is competent against an interlocutory order of this nature. Even otherwise, I see no ground for interference. The additional evidence which the appellant-company sought to lead consisted of an affidavit of Chander Shekhar Bhardwaj, a member of the appellant s joint Hindu Family firm residing at Delhi, a certified copy of the statement of Haji Ahsan I lain recorded on commission at Karachi on 21st July (without specifying the year) in suit No. 7 of 1953, and two photostat copies of certain documents executed by Haji Ahsan Illahi, on 1st July, 1954, and 19th November, 1951. In refusing to admit these documents by way of additional evidence, the learned Assistant registrar. Marks, not only ob served that the application for additional evidence was very much delayed and its acceptance WOuld result in reopening of The case de novo but further held that none of the certified copies which the appellants wished to place on record was admissible in evidence. In this connection, he held that no attempt had been made to make out a case for secondary evidence which alone would justify the admission of certified copies, and the proceedings in which the statement of Haji Ahsan Illahi was recorded on commission and the documents of which the photostat copies are sought to be put in were not strictly inter-parties. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties counsel and going through the relevant facts, I find that these observations of the learned Assistant Registrar are fully justified and the reasons given by him for not acceding to the request of the appellant s counsel are cogent and valid. Though rule 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, empowers a Registrar to admit additional evidence at any stage of the proceedings, he has, discretion in the matter and no party has a right to insist upon production of additional evidence at a late stage of the case or to place on re- cord documents which are not admissible under the law. I thus find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs,