JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2012, passed in I.A.No.211 of 2012 in O.S.No.45 of 2012, on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, and set aside the same. 2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2012 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, servants, agents, distributors, stockist, representatives or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the appellant's/plaintiff's Trade Mark registered No.374252 in clause 34 and 374251 in clause 34 in respect of Beedies or any other mark deceptively similar to the appellant's trade marks SEYADU BEEDI or in any other manner whatsoever and other reliefs. 3. Pending suit, the appellant also filed an application in I.A.No.211 of 2012 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent, his men and agents etc. from manufacturing and marketing and passing off his infringed marked beedies, till the disposal of the suit. 4. According to the appellant, they are manufacturing and selling Beedies in the name and style of 'SEYADU BEEDI' and their trademark has been registered under the Copyrights Act, whereas the respondent is manufacturing and marketing Beedies in the name and style of 'UDAYAM BEEDI'. The colours combination and the labels of respondent Beedi are deceptively similar. Therefore, they prayed for temporary injunction pending suit. 5. The respondent, in his counter affidavit, denied all the allegations made by the appellant. According to the respondent, he is manufacturing superior quality and no similarity of label and colour of the products of the appellant and the respondent. 6. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction, verified the products of the appellant and the respondent. The learned Judge has noted the various differences between the two labels and concluded that there is no similarity between the two labels. On such conclusion, the learned Judge held that the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the case and dismissed the application for temporary injunction. On such conclusion, the learned Judge held that the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the case and dismissed the application for temporary injunction. The learned Judge also held that the issue in the application for temporary injunction can be decided only after full fledged trial, by letting in oral and documentary evidence. Against the said order, the appellant has field the present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.211 of 2012. 8. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge has noted down various differences of the products of the appellant and the respondent. He also applied this fact in consonance with various Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in proper perspective, and dismissed the said application. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge has given reason for dismissal of the said application and this Court finds no reason to interfere with or to set aside the said order. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment without being influenced by the reasons given in the order dismissing the application and without reference to the same.