ORDER : 1. Vide impugned judgment dated 19th May 2000, while deciding IA No. 7665/1999 and IA No. 8739/1999, the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that there being a suppression of a material fact, not only was the ex-parte injunction granted liable to be vacated, but even the plaint was liable to be rejected. 2. The suppression found is, it not being disclosed in the plaint that when the Registrar of Trade Marks granted to the appellant registration of the trademark (word mark) 'Suraj' as also the device of 'Sun', the same was with a disclaimer of the word 'Suraj' and the device 'Sun'. 3. As explained in the appeal and as urged by learned counsel, the appellant, engaged in the trade of selling tobacco, would not understand what disclaimers would be. He only understood, when his lawyer, at his instructions, applied for and obtained the aforesaid registration. The counsel never informed that the same were with a disclaimer. Unfortunately, it is not the requirement of law that while granting registration, on the certificate, the Registrar should mention the fact of a disclaimer, if any. Thus, on the strength of the certificate, when the appellant went to another counsel on finding infringement by the respondent, the counsel concerned drafted the plaint on the strength of the certificate granted. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the aforesaid has not even been adverted to by the learned Single Judge. We find the decision mechanical. 5. Lest parties are prejudiced, and as we proceed to remand the matter for fresh adjudication, we speak no further. 6. Whether the suppression was deliberate or unintentional, needs to be reconsidered with reference to the aforesaid facts and legal position noted by us herein above. It would be so done by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated May 19, 2000 is set aside. CS(OS) No. 1744/199 and IA No. 7665/1999 and IA No. 8739/1999 are restored for fresh adjudication. 8. It would be so done by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated May 19, 2000 is set aside. CS(OS) No. 1744/199 and IA No. 7665/1999 and IA No. 8739/1999 are restored for fresh adjudication. 8. Noting that the appellant had the benefit of an ex-parte ad-interim stay till impugned judgment was pronounced and thereafter was the beneficiary of an interim order passed in the appeal, we direct that the interim restraint order against the defendant i.e. the respondent shall continue to enure till IA No. 7665/1999 and IA No. 8739/1999 are re-decided by the learned Single Judge. 9. No costs.