Judgment :- Rangaswamy, J. This is an application to implead the party as second plaintiff. It is stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction against the defendant, that the plaintiff Jaya Soap Works Limited is the assignee of the trade marks "SUPER PONVANDU" and "PONVANDU DETERGENT CAKE" by the proposed party, which is a partnership concern, that the respondent/defendant had infringed the trade mark and Copy right of the plaintiff and also is passing off the goods and therefore, the present suit has been filed against the defendant, but the defendant has taken up the contention in the written statement that as the plaintiff is not a registered proprietor as their name is not registered, the suit is not maintainable and to avoid the technical objection, by way of abundant caution, they want to implead Jaya Soap Works, the assignor, as the second plaintiff to the suit. 2. The respondent/defendent has filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable as they cannot cure the defect viz. lack of cause of action for the suit under the Trade Marks Act and the applicant has instituted the suit prematurely and, therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs sought for. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the proposed party has to be impleaded as the second plaintiff to the suit. 4. The plaintiff, who is a manufacturer of SUPER PONVANDU and "PONVANDU DETERGENT CAKE" got assignment of the trade mark from the proposed party, which is a partnership concern. Though the trade mark is registered under the Trade Marks Act, after the assignment of the trade mark in favour of the plaintiff, it has to be registered under Section 44 of the Trade Marks Act in the name of the assignee to call the assignee as a registered proprietor. It appears that now the application is pending before the Registrar to register the applicatas the assignee registered proprietor. But as the respondent/defendant has infringed this trade mark of the applicant, the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction and other reliefs. The respondent/defendant has taken up the contention in the written statement as the plaintiff/applicant is not the registered proprietor, he is not entitled to seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for the infringement of the trade mark and there is no cause of notion for this relief. The respondent/defendant has taken up the contention in the written statement as the plaintiff/applicant is not the registered proprietor, he is not entitled to seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for the infringement of the trade mark and there is no cause of notion for this relief. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this application now to implead the original registered proprietor viz., Jaya Soap Works (partnership) as the second plaintiff because the trade mark still continues in the name of the proposed party and the assignees application for registering their name, is still pending before the Registrar. .5. The Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. B.T. Seshadri contended that the registration of the name of the proprietor of only a formality to recognise his title to the trade mark and eventhough the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit as assignee of the trade mark, to avoid technical objection, the original registered proprietor also has to be impleaded as a second plaintiff to this suit. .6. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, is relied upon a decision of this Court in Samaiyajulu Venkata Narasimham v. Suryanarayana 1942 (2) MLJ 412 ) wherein it is held that when an application under Section 23 (Madras Act 4 of 1938) is filed by a wrong person for his own benefit and without any idea of benefitting the real person entitled to the right, the application cannot be rendered valid by subsequently transposing the judgment debtor/respondent as petitioner and thus overcoming the objection to the maintainability of the application, in such a case, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. have no application. According to the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent, the plaintiff knowing fully well that he is not a registered proprietor, has filed the suit seeking relief under the Trade Marks Act and it is not a bona fide mistake and when he is not entitled to maintain the suit under Trade Marks Act for the infringement of the trade mark right the suit itself is not maintainable and therefore that cannot be ordered by impleading the assignor, who was the original registered proprietor. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present plaintiffs/applicants are not entitled to the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present plaintiffs/applicants are not entitled to the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice. .It is averred in the petition that the Trade mark PRESTIGE was originally registered under No. 141602 in Class 21 in the name of Platers and Stampers Limit relief for the infringement of the trade marks right but they are entitled to certain other reliefs asked for under the Copy Rights Act and the proposed party if impleaded, will be entitled to claim relief under the Trade Marks Act and there cannot be a decree one in favour of the first plaintiff giving relief under the Copy Right Act and other relief in favour of the second plaintiff under provisions of Trade Marks Act and two plaintiffs claiming relief under the different enactments, cannot combine their causes of action by filing a single suit and therefore the proposed party can not be impleaded as the second plaintiff in this suit. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent the proposed party is entitled to file a separate suit against the defendant under the Trade Marks Act for the infringement of the trade mark and they cannot be impleaded as the second plaintiff in this suit. .7. It is stated that the application is now pending before the Registrar to register the applicant as the registered proprietor. If that application is allowed, the applicant himself will be the registered proprietor entitled to seek relief under the Trade Marks Act against, the respondent/defendant and the proposed party will become an unnecessary party for this suit. On the other hand, if the applicants name is not registered as the registered proprietor, and the proposed party alone is entitled to seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for the infringement, the causes of action will be different for the existing plaintiff and the proposed party seeking relief under different provisions of law. Therefore, both of them cannot join together to file the suit. In view of those reasons, the application deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the application is dismissed. No costs.