V. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 29. 1. 2000 in Civil Appeal No 27-A/99 by District Judge ,sagar, whereby the application of plaintiff/ respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C. P. C. and Section 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter reffered to as the 'act' for short) was allowed and the appellants/defendants have been restrained from using the label of the bidis bearing the word 'sangam'. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent/plaintiff as well as the appellants are the manufacturers of bidi. The respondent/plaintiff sells bidis manufactured by it under the brand name 'sangam', while the appellants/defendants sell their bidis under the brand 'r. K. Sangam'. The respondent/ plaintiff felt aggrieved by the deceptive similarity between the labels on the bidis manufactured by it with the label that was being used by the appellants/ defendents. He, therefore, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants restraining them by using the label, which according to him was deceptively similar to the label used by it and amounted to 'passing off' action on the part of defendants/appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C. P. C. and Section 106 of the Act was filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Trial Court after considering and comparing the two labels came to the conclusion that the label used for selling its bidis under the brand name 'r. K. Sangam' was deceptively similar and the illiterate or semiliterate persons who normally are the customers of bidis could not distinguish between the two labels. Thus, 'passing off' of bidis manufactured by the appellants/defendants could not be permitted. The application of the plaintiff/ respondent was therefore allowed and temporary injunction against the appellants/defandents was issued. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for appellants/defendants has urged that there are distinguishing features in the labels used by the appellants/defendants, which clearly distinguish and differentiate the labels with that used by the plaintiff/respondent. The two labels used by the contesting parties have been produced. ( 5 ) IT appears from the labels used by the respondent/plaintiff as well as by the appellants/defendants that the colour scheme in both the labels are similar. The two labels used by the contesting parties have been produced. ( 5 ) IT appears from the labels used by the respondent/plaintiff as well as by the appellants/defendants that the colour scheme in both the labels are similar. The figure and posture of a man and woman used in both the labels are also similar. The word 'sangam' is also written in bold letters in bot the labels, though of course word 'r. K. ' has been written in one set of labels used by the appellants/ defendants. The words 'r. K. ' appear to be the only distinguishing feature between the two labels. However, as has been rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, the mention of word 'r. K. ' is not such a distinction which could be expected to be noticed by the normal consumer of bidis, because consumers of bidis are mostly villagers and almost illiterate persons, in the circumstances, prima facie it appears that the label used by appellants/defendants suffers from the stigma of 'passing off'action on their part. The temporary injunction in the circumstances was, therefore, rightly granted by the impugned order. No interference in the said order is called for. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel for appellants submits that his bidi manufacturing business is likely to be adversely affected and jeopardised on account of the order of temporary injunction. ( 7 ) IT is clear that the appellants/defendants cannot be restrained from manufacturing bidis or doing business. They however, cannot be permitted to use such label, which would amount to 'passing off action. It is also clear from the impugned order that the appellants have been restrained from using the words 'sangam' in their labels. If the appellants intend selling their bidis, they may change their label in such a manner that it would not amount to 'passing off, action on their part. If they do so, they will be free to manufacture and sell their bidis. ( 8 ) SINCE the impugned order does not call for any interference, this appeal stands finally disposed of, with the above observations. Appeal dismissed. .