Judgment Bimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of an application in a suit filed by the appellant herein whereby the appellant plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 by itself or through its servants or agents including the defendant No. 2 from infringing in any way; the plaintiff's trade mark 'CANON' bearing the Registration No. 164191; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 whether acting by itself or its servants or agents or any of them including the defendant No. 2 from passing off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off television sets under the name, brand or mark 'CANON' or any colourable imitation thereof; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from using in any way whatsoever the name 'CANON' as part of its trade or corporate name; permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from allowing any name containing and/or incorporating the word 'CANON' to remain as the name of the defendant No. 1 either on the register of the records of the Registrar of Companies; delivery up for destruction of all blocks, dyes and other printing materials of any kind whatsoever and all the advertising material and/or matter relating to the said mark, brand or name 'CANON' either by itself or as a part of the defendant No. 1's trade and/or corporate name; costs. 2. 2. AFTER filing of the suit a Notice of Motion was taken out for- (a) Injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from advertising, selling or offering for sale or selling television sets of the manufacture of the defendant No. 1 under or by the name of trade mark 'CANON' whether including or not the distinctive nature of the letters or characters thereof as in the plaintiff's trade mark 'CANON' or any colourable imitation thereof or at all; (b) Injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from selling any television set of the manufacture of the defendant No. 1 under or by the name or trade mark 'CANON' whether including or not the distinctive nature of the letters or characters thereof as in the plaintiff's trade mark 'CANON' or any colourable imitation thereof or at all; (c) Such person or persons be appointed as Receiver or Receivers as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper of and over all advertising materials, advertisements, promotional matters and materials of and in respect of all television sets of the manufacture of the defendant No. 1 under the name 'CANON' and all televisions sets of the defendant No. 1 under the name 'CANON' wherever situate with the direction upon the said Receiver or Receivers to forthwith take possession of and keep the same safe and secure; (d) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above; (e) Costs of and incidental to this application be cost in the cause; (f) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or directions given as this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper. An ex parte order was passed on 9th May, 1984 which is as follows:- "Please note that this day the above application being moved ex parte before the Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Padma Khastgir Her Lordship was pleased to pass an ad- interim order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion. Returnable Monday next the 14th May, 1984 irrespective of filing of affidavit of service and granted leave to serve the respondent No. 1 under registered post with acknowledgement due." 3. UPON filing of affidavits, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application and vacated all interim orders. 4. THIS order was passed in July 1984. Returnable Monday next the 14th May, 1984 irrespective of filing of affidavit of service and granted leave to serve the respondent No. 1 under registered post with acknowledgement due." 3. UPON filing of affidavits, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application and vacated all interim orders. 4. THIS order was passed in July 1984. THIS appeal was preferred immediately thereafter, but there is nothing before us to show that any stay of the operation of the order was passed or that any other interim order was passed by this Appeal Court in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time. It is true that the learned Trial Judge did not give any reason. In our opinion, in such cases it is fit and proper that reasons be given by the learned Trial Judge particularly when interim orders are being vacated. Be that as it may, in view of the passage of time during which there was no order, it is not fit and proper that this Court should at this stage interfere with the interim order passed. In any event the appellant plaintiff should have taken steps for early hearing of the suit. The written statement has been filed. They could have also taken steps for early hearing of the appeal. They have done neither, but they have allowed the present state of affairs to continue for 5 years. It is not proper that at this stage, the position which has been continuing for the last 5 years, should be unsettled by the Appeal Court reviewing the order of the Trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed. However, we direct the defendant to maintain separate accounts in respect of the televisions sets and V.D.O. cassette recorders which are the subject matter of the suit until further orders. So far as the suit itself is concerned, let the hearing be expedited. All documents by the parties be disclosed within a week from this date Inspection forthwith thereafter. Judge's brief of documents be prepared immediately thereafter. The suit will appeal at the top of the appropriate warning list one week after the Summer Vacation. Liberty is given to the parties to apply for early hearing. 5. PARTIES are entitled to get signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this judgment.