Short Note : The suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondents for a declaration that the respondents had infringed the appellant's copyright and for an injunction restraining the respondents from printing, publishing, selling or offering for sale their book. On 16th August 1977, the trial Court heard the arguments on the question of grant of temporary injunction and the case was reserved for orders. On 5th September 1977 he ordered the defendants to file the written statement, which was filed on 7th October 1977. No further arguments were heard and on 8th October 1977, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction. Held : The impugned order passed by the trial Court takes into consideration the ground urged as a preliminary objection in the written statement that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as the copyright was not registered in accordance with the Copyright Act, 1957. It is not disputed that this objection was not taken in the replies dated 23rd July 1977 and 5th August 1977 filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore on 16th August 1977 when the trial Court heard arguments on the application for grant of temporary injunction, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had no opportunity to address arguments on the question of maintainability of the suit as raised in the preliminary objection taken by the respondents subsequently in the written-statement. This objection about the maintainability of the suit was taken for the first time in the written-statement filed on 7th October 1977, and it is common ground that either on that date or on 8th October 1977, when the impugned order was passed, counsel for the parties did not advance any further arguments on the question of grant of temporary injunction. Moreover, from the proceedings of the trial Court dated 5th September 1977, it is apparent that the trial Court wanted to take into consideration the written-statement to be filed on behalf of the defendant before passing a final order on the application for grant of temporary injunction, parties were, however, not heard after the written-statement was filed. In these circumstances, the case should go back to the trial Court for deciding afresh after hearing the parties again in the light of the pleas raised by the defendants in the written-statement. Appeal allowed.