Honble SINGH, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant. (2). On 24th July, 1998 this Court directed that notice be issued to respondents. Record of the case was also requisitioned. The notices have not been served so far on respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and record of the lower court has also not been received. Learned Counsel for the appellant has requested that respondents may be restrained from using the trade-mark in question till disposal of this appeal. (3). It appears that an stay application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC has been filed by the appellant. Since the appeal is against the order by which application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151, CPC was rejected by the trial court, no question of passing any stay order under Rule 5 of Order 41 C.P.C. arise. Where any application is rejected or a suit is dismissed, neither the order of rejection nor the order of dismissal can be stayed though the execution of the decree for cost may be stayed. The order which the learned counsel for the appellant desires to be passed in this case cannot be passed under Rule 5 or Order 41 CPC. (4). A perusal of the impugned order dated 13th July, 1998 passed by the lear- ned Additional District Judge, Bali shows that the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151, CPC was not decided on merits and was rejected on the ground that the suit was not maintainable by virtue of provisions contained under Sec. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. It does not appear that the learned Additional District Judge, Bali has passed any order under Rule 7 Order 11 CPC re- jecting the plaint. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed before this Court a certified copy of the entries of Registrar (Firms) without moving an application under Order41, Rule 27 CPC and contended that the suit is not barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. (5). Learned counsel for the appellant has filed before this Court a certified copy of the entries of Registrar (Firms) without moving an application under Order41, Rule 27 CPC and contended that the suit is not barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. (5). Since the learned Additional District Judge has not passed any final order under Rule 7 Order 11, CPC nor has passed any final judgment or decree, dismissing the suit on the ground that suit was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, it would be proper that the appellant submits a copy of the entries of the Registrar (Firms) before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali so that at appro- priate point of time learned Additional District Judge may decide the question whether the suit is in fact barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. (6). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is prepared to file true copies of the entries of the Registrar (Firms) before the learned trial court. (7). If the certified copies of the entries of Registrar (Firms) is submitted by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali and an application in moved before him for passing an order on the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, learned Additional District Judge, Bali would pass appropriate orders on that application in accordance with law. (8). Learned counsel for the appellant has further prayed that the notices of respondents No. 1 to 3 be given to him dasti. (9). Prayer is allowed. Fresh notices for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 be issued an the same be given dasti to learned counsel for the appellant.