Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.425 of 1987. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. It was a suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, ventilating his grievance that the copyright of the plaintiff was infringed by the defendants and there was passing off the goods of the defendants as and for the goods of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the artistic design and literary work contained in its package Exs.C-1 and C-2 by use of the defendants of their package Exs.G-1 and G-2 or by any other package containing any artistic work or literary work which is deceptively similar to plaintiffs package being Exs.C-1 and C-2 and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the goods of the defendants as and for the goods of the plaintiff by using the trade mark ALWAYS or by use of the package being Exs.G-1 and G-2 hereto annexed or by use of the distinctive colour scheme and get-up and in particular the device of a flying bird in a logo form or any other design which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs package design being Exs.C-1 and C-2 and also seeking for damages and other reliefs. 3. Written statement was filed, inter-alia, denying all the averments in the plaint. The defendants came forward with the specific averments that the defendant had applied for registration of trademark COMFIT ALWAYS even prior to the registration of the trademark of the plaintiff and they have been trading so internationally and hence coming forward with such a suit seeking for injunction was thoroughly misleading and that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief. 4. The learned Single Judge framed 10 issues. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and no documents were also marked. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions made and considering the materials available, has dismissed the suit as one not properly instituted. 5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and no documents were also marked. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions made and considering the materials available, has dismissed the suit as one not properly instituted. 5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel, in short, would submit that out of 10 issues framed on the pleadings put forth by the parties, the learned Single Judge has answered only issue Nos.4 to 8 and the other issues were not answered. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit as one not properly instituted, since the xerox copy of power of attorney was filed and not the original document and hence it could not be relied upon. The learned counsel would further add that insofar as the institution of the suit whether it was proper or not, not even an issue was framed, but the learned Single Judge has given a finding that as if the suit has not been properly instituted and hence on that score, the judgment of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. The learned counsel has further submitted that on instructions, it is learnt that the defendants, against whom injunction was sought for, are not selling the goods in question and under these circumstances, the appellant is prepared to get an order of disposal with a liberty to file a fresh suit, if, in future, the defendants again go on with the sale of the property in question and hence an order has got to be passed. 6. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, all the contentions put forth by the appellants side do not carry any merit whatsoever. The defendants are reiterating the very stand which was taken before the learned Single Judge. According to the appellant/plaintiff, there was infringement of copyright and it was also continuing. If to be so, no question of granting any liberty to file a fresh suit would arise and in such a case, the appeal has got to be dismissed. 7. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. According to the appellant/plaintiff, there was infringement of copyright and it was also continuing. If to be so, no question of granting any liberty to file a fresh suit would arise and in such a case, the appeal has got to be dismissed. 7. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit as one not properly instituted for the reasons set out therein and this court is in full agreement with a view taken and hence no disturbance in respect of that finding would arise and therefore, the appeal has got to be disposed of. 8. Insofar as the other questions are concerned, the Court is of the considered opinion that those issues decided and answered by the learned Single Judge, need not arise for consideration at all. As could be seen from the plaint averments, there was infringement of copyright and hence injunction was sought for. If the same situation continues, then it would be a continuing wrong and the cause of action is also continuing. Under these circumstances, no question of granting liberty to the appellant/plaintiff would arise. Apart from that, there cannot be any impediment in law for the appellant/plaintiff to file a fresh suit, if actually cause of action is available for the plaintiff to file the suit. With the above observation, this original side appeal is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their costs.