JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal, is, directed by the aggrieved defendants/appellants herein, against, the orders pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, upon, Civil Misc. Application No. 84-S/6 of 2017, whereunder, the plaintiff's (respondent No.1 herein) application constituted, under, the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed, (i) and, the appellants herein/ defendants were restrained from using the name of M/s D.P. Jagan Hardware Pvt. Ltd., (ii) or any other similar name thereby deceptively using the name of the applicant/plaintiff i.e. “M/s D.P. Jagan & Sons” in any manner whatsoever, either by defendants or through agents, servants, family members whatsoever, till, the decision, of, the main suit. 2. The impugned order would stand concluded to suffer, from, an inherent fallacy, upon, an incisive analysis, of, the material on record hence making prima facie disclosures, qua, the learned trial Court, not, adhering to the triplicate tests, rather governing the according or refusing, of, the relief of ad interim injunction, triplicate tests whereof are comprised in (a) prima facie case existing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff; (b) balance of convenience also existing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff; (c) and, upon non according of the relief of ad interim injunction, thereupon, the plaintiff being put to suffer irreparable loss or injury. An analyses of the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court, unfolds, qua it proceeding to apply afore triplicate tests, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, and, hence thereafter, it, proceeding to accord the relief, of, ad interim injunction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, (d) and, the afore affirmative application, of, the afore triplicate tests, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff hence apparently, stand anvilled, upon the factum of (a) various annexures appended with the plaint, rather unfolding qua the sale tax number, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff firm being registered with the tax department of the Union Territory, Chandigarh; (b) upon, Annexure P-31, comprising a verdict rendered by the Civil Court at Chandigarh, whereunder, the relief of temporary injunction, stood granted, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff against the defendants, whereunder, the latter stood restrained from using the name of D.P. Jagan & Company or any other similar deceptive mark to run their business, order whereof stood averred in the plaint to be affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 3. 3. The afore reliance placed by the learned trial Court, for, hence, its affirmatively applying, the afore triplicate tests, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (i) would assume validation, only upon, the learned trial Court also visibly bearing in mind, the, contentions contra thereto, reared by the defendant, in the written statement, instituted to the plaint, and, also it bearing in mind, the apt supportive material appended therewith. Apparently, a perusal of the written statement, instituted by the defendants/appellants herein, vis-a-vis, the plaint, underscores (a) the business establishment nomenclatured as “D.P. Jagan” being in existence since 1962; (b) upon its dissolution on 30.11.1985, the plaintiff, one of the partners therein, hence, mutually agreeing, vis-a-vis other partners of the erstwhile firm, subsequent to its dissolution, hence commencing business in the name and style of “D.P. Jagan and Company”. The plaintiff company, after its dissolution in the year 1985, visibly and apparently, is, manned by the successors-in-interest, of, the erstwhile joint founder(s) thereto, and, also visibly, the defendant firm is also manned by the apt successors-in-interest, of, the co-founders/founders, of, D.K. Jagan and Company, (i) company whereof initially, with, afore christened name hence commenced business in the year 1962, (ii) apparently hence, the christening of both the plaintiff firm, and, of the defendant firm, as D.P. Jagan, is an ensual, of, the apt respective predecessors-in-interest, of, the apposite partners therein, hence, holding entrenched proprietary interest therein, conspicuously upto its dissolution, and, all the apt entitlements, also encompassing, the user, of, un-dissolved generic company, named and styled as D.P. Jagan and Company. The afore contention reared in the written statement, by the defendants/appellants herein, remained uncontroverted by the plaintiff, by its instituting replication thereto. Moreover, the afore factum, is, prima facie succored by the factum, that, one D.P. Singal, the successor-in-interest of one of the cofounder, of, the afore generic company rather permitting the apt user, of, name “D.P.”, in her firms, by one Santosh Brij, wife of M.R. B.K. Singal, where through, defendant No.1 is sued, (i) and, further more, one Jagan Nath, the co-founder of the generic company also permitting Smt. Santosh Brij w/o Mr. B.K. Singal, to use word “Jagan) in her firm's name. B.K. Singal, to use word “Jagan) in her firm's name. The afore material appended with the written statement, though remains to be yet proven, in accordance with law, yet at this stage it comprises the apt material to succor the afore propagation reared in their written statement, by the defendant, (ii) given corroboration thereto being meted by the plaintiff, comprising in the plaintiff not instituting replication thereto. Since, the nomenclaturing, and, christening, of, the plaintiff firm, falls within the domain, of, afore referred material, thereupon, it comprises, the apt acquiescence of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff,(iii) vis-a-vis, subsequent to the dissolution of the generic firm, nomenclatured as D.P. Jagan and Sons, the defendants being entitled to use the afore nomenclatured name, for, running their business, (iv) and, also prima facie, estops the plaintiff to contend qua its holding any exclusivity, of entitlement qua the user of the afore name, for, running the apt businesses. 4. In aftermath, the application, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, of, the afore triplicate tests, by the learned trial Court, upon, the material placed on record by the plaintiff, appears to be absurd, given the learned trial Court not meteing an appropriate perusal, and, deference vis-a-vis, the contention reared by the defendants, in their written statement, and, also, vis-a-vis, the afore referred material, in support thereto, as, stood also appended therewith. As a corollary, the order impugned before this Court suffers from a gross mis-appreciation, of, the material on record. 5. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and, the appeal is allowed. In aftermath, the application bearing CMA No. 84-S/6 of 2017 is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal, on 10th December, 2018. However, it is made clear that the afore findings shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.