Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. This appeal is directed against an order dismissing the application for injunction filed by the appellant herein during the pendency of proceedings under Section 53 of the Designs Act, 1911. The appellant claims that he has got a registered design and he has been selling edible oil, particularly coconut oil, in containers with the said design. In the main proceeding he has prayed for an injunction restraining the respondents from infringing his registered design and for consequential relief's. He applied for ad-interim injunction till the disposal of the main proceeding, that was opposed by the respondents on the ground that there was no originality or novelty in the design and in fact the very same design was adopted by the respondent's principals even from 1978. It is the case of the respondent that the registration of the design granted in favour of the appellant was really invalid and the design ought not to have been registered. The respondent has also filed a proceeding in this Court for rectification of the register and canceling the registration granted to the appellant. 2. The court below has refused to grant injunction mainly on the ground that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case that the design adopted by him was original or novel and that he was not in any way influenced by the design which was being adopted by the respondent's principal for over a decade. Further, the Court below has held that the appellant is manufacturing only coconut oil and selling the same in the containers with the said design while the respondent is selling shampoo, in containers of a similar size. Therefore, the Court below has taken the view that there is no possibility of any customer being misled by the design and there is no likelihood of deception as the two products belonged to entirely different classes of goods. 3. I am of the view that there is no case for interference by this Court is appeal as the Court below has rightly pointed out that the balance of convenience is only is favour of the respondent herein. It is brought to my notice that the respondent is having sales to the tune of several crores every year, whereas, the turnover of the appellant with respect to oil is very much less then that of the respondent. It is brought to my notice that the respondent is having sales to the tune of several crores every year, whereas, the turnover of the appellant with respect to oil is very much less then that of the respondent. As the goods with which the respondent is dealing are entirely different and there is no likelihood of any deception on the purchasers because of the containers having the same design, there is no justification for granting injunction restraining the respondent from carrying on business with the design inquisition. It is not necessary for me to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out in view of the fact that I am agreeing with the Court below that balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. The question whether the appellant has got a valid registration and by virtue of which he has got a copyright for the design has to be gone into and decided in the main proceeding. It will be relevant in the main proceeding to consider whether the design has got originality or novelty. It is only after deciding this question right of parties can be ultimately decided. But for the purpose of the interlocutory application it is sufficient to point out that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant. 4. If the appellant succeeds in the main proceeding he will certainly be entitled to recover such damages as he might have incurred because of the sales of shampoo in containers having the same design or similar design by the respondent during the tendency of the proceedings. In such circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.