Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.: 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order dated 13th July, 2016 (later) passed by the Learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas, Barasat in Title Suit No. 08 of 2016 at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. 2. By the impugned order, the plaintiffs’ prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge on the ground of lack of urgency. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal before us. 3. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on 6th September, 2016. After the appeal was admitted, we passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from selling its product and/or marketing and/or advertising the same by using the impugned trademark “KINOVA” which is deceptively similar to the appellants’ trademark “KINNOVA” till 17th November, 2016 or until further order whichever is earlier. 4. When we were considering the appellants’ prayer for extension of interim order, we were invited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the injunction application. 5. Considering such submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have decided to hear out the appeal on merit. 6. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case. 7. The plaintiffs/appellants prayed for temporary injunction in an action for passing off. The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiff no.1 is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing various types of kitchen appliances, inter alia, Kitchen Chimney, Electrical Hobs, Water Purifier, Multifunction Pressure Cooker and various other appliances under the trade mark “KUTCHINA” since 2002. It is alleged by the plaintiffs/appellants that people common to the trade and the public at large exclusively associate with the trademark “KUTCHINA” per se with the goods of the appellant no.1 only and none else. 8. It is alleged by the plaintiffs/appellants that people common to the trade and the public at large exclusively associate with the trademark “KUTCHINA” per se with the goods of the appellant no.1 only and none else. 8. It is further claimed that with an intention to introduce another brand for its products i.e. steam ventilating apparatus and other kitchen appliances in or about 2006, the appellant no.1 adopted a trade mark “KINNOVA” in a bona fide manner and has been continuously using the same in course of trade without any interruption since then. 9. It is alleged by the plaintiffs/appellants that the plaintiffs/appellants came to know in or about June, 2015 that the defendant/respondent no.1 was selling kitchen appliances and other allied goods by using the impugned trademark “KINOVA” which is the fraudulent imitation of the petitioners’ mark “KINNOVA”. 10. Being a prior user of the trademark “KINNOVA”, the plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit seeking injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their men, servants, agents, employees and/or assigns or any person acting on their behalf from manufacturing and selling their product under the impugned trademark “KINOVA” or any other trademark which is either identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiffs’ trademark “KINNOVA” both phonetically and structurally as the goods of the plaintiffs or in any other manner whatsoever. 11. Other incidental reliefs are also claimed by the plaintiffs in the said suit. In such a suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the respondents their men, servants, agents, employees and/or assigns from manufacturing and selling and/or marketing, advertising and/or using the impugned trademark “KINOVA” or any other mark which is either identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiffs trademark “KINNOVA” both phonetically and structurally in any other manner whatsoever in respect of ventilating, air ventilations, water purifier, oven burners, heating system. 12. The learned Trial Judge refused to pass any ad interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs only on the ground that there is no urgency in the matter, as such the ad interim order of injunction cannot be granted by dispensing with the requirement of service of notice upon the defendants. 13. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the materials on record. 15. 13. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the materials on record. 15. We cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion which was drawn by the learned Trial Judge while refusing to grant ad interim order of injunction as we are of the view that being a prior user of the trademark “KINNOVA” the plaintiffs, in our view can seek such ad interim relief against the defendants particularly, when the plaintiffs made a specific averment in the suit as well as in the injunction application that the defendants has started selling its product viz. kitchen appliances and other allied goods falling in Class 11 by using the trademark “KINOVA” which is the fraudulent imitation of the appellants’ mark “KINNOVA”. 16. We thus, hold that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a strong prima facie case in the said application and if the balance of convenience and inconvenience is considered, that will go only in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of ad interim order of injunction. 17. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and dispose of this appeal by maintaining the ad interim order of injunction which was passed by this Court at the time of admitting the appeal on 6th September, 2016 with this rider that the said injunction will remain operative till the disposal of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction in respect of the products viz. ventilating, air ventilations, water purifier, oven burners, heating system which plaintiffs company also manufactures and/or sells in the market. 18. Leave is granted to the defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction within two weeks from date, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiffs/appellants within a week thereafter. 19. We request the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction preferably by the end of January, 2017. 20. 18. Leave is granted to the defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction within two weeks from date, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiffs/appellants within a week thereafter. 19. We request the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction preferably by the end of January, 2017. 20. We however, make it clear that while disposing of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction, the learned Trial Judge is absolutely free to decide the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction on its own merit after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove which are made by this court only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal which is directed against refusal to grant ad interim injunction. 21. Both the appeal and the application filed are thus, disposed of. 22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.