Judgment :- SRINIVSAN, J. This in an appeal against an order dismissing an application for injunction filed by the plaintiff pending disposal of its suit based upon a copyright alleged to have been used by it since 1930. 2. We do not propose to go into the details of the arguments advanced on both sides as we intend disposing of the matter on a very short ground. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and that it had failed to obtain an injunction in two earlier proceedings instituted by it in Andhra Pradesh. Courts. There was also a proceeding in Andhra Pradesh High Courts where the plaintiff failed to get an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on the business. No doubt it is common ground that the proceedings in Andhra Pradesh courts related to infringement of trade mark and passing-off, the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff and that the question of infringement of copyright was not involved in those proceedings. 3. The following relevant dates are sufficient for our purpose to negative the claim of the plaintiff for an injunction during the tendency of the suit. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that the mark on the Beedi label has been in use from 1930. The defendant admittedly started using its mark in 1965. The defendant obtained registration under the Copyright Act for two of its wrappers in 1981. The plaintiff instituted a suit, O.S. No. 61 of 1981 on the file of the District Court, Machilipatnam alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 10907 and passing-off. It applied for interim injunction and the application was dismissed. That suit is said to be pending even now. Another suit, O.S. No. 19 of 1981, was instituted by the plaintiff in the District Court of Eluru for similar reliefs and there also the plaintiff failed to obtain an injunction. Against the order of the District Judge, Machilipatnam the Plaintiff filed C.M.A. No. 990 of 1981 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded enabling the plaintiff to file a fresh application. After remand the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 315 of 1982 for injunction and that was dismissed. Against the order of the District Judge, Machilipatnam the Plaintiff filed C.M.A. No. 990 of 1981 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded enabling the plaintiff to file a fresh application. After remand the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 315 of 1982 for injunction and that was dismissed. An appeal against the same is pending but the application for interim-injunction was dismissed. There after, in 1983 the plaintiff registered its mark under the Copyright Act, 1957. In the application for registration it was mentioned that the year of first publication as 1937. In fact, it had also mentioned that one Mr. Mani was the author of the copyright. It had claimed that it was the owner of the copyright. It is registered as an artistic work. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the entry in Col. 9 of the Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Copyright to the effect that the first publication was made in 1937. Our attention is drawn to Sec. 48 of the Copyright Act under which the register of copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein. Learned counsel urges that as the entry in the register of copyrights is prima facie evidence the plaintiffs case that it has been using the copyright since 1937 has to be accepted as established for the purpose of interlocutory applications. It is further contended that since admittedly the defendant had been using the mark only from 1965 it should be prevented by an order of injunction from carrying on its business. We are unable to accept this contention as the registration of the copyright came into existence only in 1933 after disputes had arisen between the parties and after the plaintiff had failed in the Courts of Andhra Pradesh to obtain an injunction. The entry, which is prima facie evidence under Sec. 48 of the Copyright Act, cannot be taken any further in view of the fact that is has come into existence only during the pendency of the litigation's. Hence, the conclusion of the learned Judge that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for the order of injunction is unassailable. 5. 5. Having regard to this aspect of the matter we do not propose to consider the other points raised by the counsel on both sides as they have to be decided in the suit after trial. In this view the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.