JUDGMENT : SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard appellant’s counsel. The learned counsel for the respondents files statement of objections to I.A. No. 1/2019. It is taken on record. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the trial Court rejecting his application for temporary injunction and vacating the ex-parte order of temporary injunction. In the suit, I.A. No. 1 was filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction and I.A. No. 6 was filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. The matter pertains to infringement of trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A. No. 2/2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for producing an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The learned counsel submits that at the time of arguing on I.A. Nos. 1 and 6 filed in the suit, the said order could not be produced before the trial court as the application made by the respondents seeking registration of trade mark was still pending. The order came to be passed on 26.11.2018. The said order shows that respondents application for registration of trade marks was rejected and in this view it helps the appellant to establish his case for temporary injunction. 4. While deciding the appeal preferred in connection with an order passed on an application for temporary injunction, this court has to examine whether the discretion exercised by the trial court either to grant or reject temporary injunction is proper or not. Based on a new document produced at the appellate stage, no finding can be given as to the discretionary power exercised by the trial court. If at all the appellant wants to reply upon a new document to establish that there are grounds to grant injunction in his favour, this court can only allow the application and require the trial court to apply its mind afresh on the document which is produced at the appellate stage. In this view, I find it necessary to remand this matter to the trial court for deciding I.A. Nos. 1 and 6 filed in the suit. The appellant is at liberty to produce the said document and argue on these two applications. The trial court may dispose of the applications expeditiously. Appeal stands disposed of.