JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)-The appellant in this appeal assails the order dated 30th October, 2007 of the learned Single Judge, adjourning the suit to 10th March, 2008. For facility of reference, we are reproducing order dated 30th October, 2007: "Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff says that the defendant had supplied some documents to him yesterday to establish his defence that the impugned design could not have been registered in favour of the plaintiff because of prior publication of the said design. The learned Counsel says that he wants to inspect the Court file to see the original of the alleged prior publication. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that he shall also take necessary instruction from his client regarding the alleged prior publication of the impugned design and shall address the Court on the next date. List for hearing in the category of Short Cause matters on 10.3.2008." 2. We may briefly recapitulate the facts, culminating in the filing of the above appeal by the appellant. The respondent instituted on or about 10th May, 2007 a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant, appellant herein, from passing off its goods as that of plaintiff. 3. Respondent avers that it is a globally reputed manufacturer of Handles, Knobs, Fittings, Accessories, Bathroom Accessories, etc. in the name of KICH. Further the respondent had got the design of its products registered. The allegation against the appellant was that it had copied 9 designs of the respondent. Not only this, appellant copied the designs with a view to mislead the public at large. The appellant also utilized the code numbers of the plaintiff. Thus, the utilization of the registered design and the specific use of code numbers was with a view to pass off its products as that of the respondent. It is not necessary to notice further details except to observe that the learned Single judge on these averments and documents placed on record, granted an ex parte injunction vide order dated 11th May, 2007, restraining the appellant from selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in respondents products. Appellant was also restrained from dealing in respondents products with registered designs, amounting to passing off the products and business of the appellant as the products and business of the respondent. Appellant was also restrained from dealing in respondents products with registered designs, amounting to passing off the products and business of the appellant as the products and business of the respondent. Appellant had preferred an appeal against the order dated 11th May, 2007 which was dismissed on 6th July, 2007 asking the plaintiff to approach the learned Single Judge since the written statement and replies to the application had been filed. The Appellate Court declined to interfere at that stage. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mohan Vidhani submits that adjourning the hearing of the application for vacation of stay to 10th March, 2008 has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice by non hearing of his application by the learned Single Judge. He submits that by virtue of provision of Order 39 Rule 3A, CPC, the outer limit is 30 days within which the injunction is either to be confirmed or vacated. Learned Counsel also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors., VI (2000) SL T 767= AIR 2000 SC 3032 , especially referring to para 19 wherein it was held that where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the I application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. It was further held in the case that the appellate Court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate Court in complying with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A, CPC. 5. The above judgment further observes that in suitable cases apart from the vacating or granting or modifying the order of injunction, the Court may consider action against erring judicial officer, etc. The above judgment, in our view, would not be attracted in the facts of this case for the reason that the appellant himself is responsible and a major contributor to the delay in disposal of the injunction application as detailed hereinafter in I the judgment. We may also observe that while all efforts should be made 9 to dispose of ex parte injunction within 30 days in terms of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code, this cherished goal based on ground realities is not always attainable. We may also observe that while all efforts should be made 9 to dispose of ex parte injunction within 30 days in terms of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code, this cherished goal based on ground realities is not always attainable. We have heard Mr. Vidhani, learned Counsel for the appellant. His main grievance is that his application for vacation of stay is not being heard. 6. Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent refutes the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and submits that as far as delay is concerned, the respondent herein and plaintiff in suit has not sought any adjournment in the matter. He submits that the appellant/defendant himself is to be blamed for lapses and the delay which has entailed. It is pointed out that when the case was fixed for arguments on 30th March, 2007, it was the appellant/ defendant who a day before, i.e., on 29th March, 2007, served bulky set of documents on the respondent/ plaintiff, which required verification. The matter perforce had to be adjourned to enable the Counsel for the respondent to inspect the said documents and obtain instructions regarding the alleged claim for prior publication of designs. 7. Mr. Vidhani sought to explain the filing of documents, by saying that considering the nature of controversy, the appellant was collecting evidence and the same became available to him only a day before the hearing and as such he filed the same. He further submits that in-such cases collection of evidence does take time. Having heard the pleas raised by the appellant and the defendant an having considered the facts of this case, we are of the view that respondent plaintiff cannot be blamed for any delay in the hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 3A, CPC. It was for the defendant to file all the documents on which he wanted to rely in defence in terms of the Order Rule 1A, CPC In case some of these documents were not available an appellant was collecting the same, blame for the delay cannot be passed either the respondent or the Court. 8. It was for the defendant to file all the documents on which he wanted to rely in defence in terms of the Order Rule 1A, CPC In case some of these documents were not available an appellant was collecting the same, blame for the delay cannot be passed either the respondent or the Court. 8. We do not wish to comment on the merits of the case lest it ma prejudice the learned Single Judge in his decision except to notice that the ex parte injunction which has been granted by the learned Single Judge aft taking note of the averments and documents on record and the facts, noticed in para 2 hereinbefore. During the course of hearing, it had be explained to the appellant that in view of the undertaking being given the respondent, not seeking an adjournment and the next date being 10 March, 2008, the learned Single Judge would be requested to hear the matter on the said date and if not possible for some reason, as early possible. Appellant declined the same and insisted on arguing the pres appeal, which is devoid of merit. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed v costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Appeal dismissed