JUDGMENT 1. In a suit for decree of permanent injunction in respect of a registered design, the Court of first instance vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 28/11/2022 has granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and has directed the defendants-appellants, their servants, agents, distributors and dealers to stop manufacturing, copying, using and selling the registered design No.233559 of the air coolers of the plaintiffs till the final disposal of the suit, or till such time as the registration of the plaintiffs remains intact. 2. One of the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants-appellants is that they also have a registered design for manufacturing the air coolers and the said design does not resembles that of the plaintiffs-respondents. 3. Their application for cancellation of the registration of the design of the plaintiffs-respondents is pending consideration before the competent authority and in most likelihood the same is liable to be allowed as in view of the Sec. 4 of the Design Act (for short ’the Act’), the said design could not have been registered. 4. Learned counsel also submits that by the interim injunction, the final relief of the suit has been granted and that instead of stopping the business of the defendants-appellants, the Court ought to have considered for directing maintaining of separate accounts in respect of the air coolers manufactured and sold by the defendants-appellants, subject to the decision of the suit. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the design of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of manufacturing of air coolers is a registered one and its registration is much prior in time than that of the registration of the design of defendants-appellants. 6. Sec. 22 of the Act clearly provides that where a copyright in any design is in existence, it shall not be lawful for any person to undertake any sale of any product of the same design without the consent of the registered proprietor. Admittedly, the defendants-appellants have not taken any consent of the plaintiffs-respondents in manufacturing the air coolers, which resembles the registered design of the plaintiffs-respondents. 7. Admittedly, the defendants-appellants have not taken any consent of the plaintiffs-respondents in manufacturing the air coolers, which resembles the registered design of the plaintiffs-respondents. 7. The learned Single Judge in granting the injunction on the basis of the comparison of the designs or the photographs of the air coolers manufactured by both the parties, has prima facie found that the air coolers manufactured by the defendantsappellants are almost total replica of the design of the defendantsrespondents and, therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents have made out a prima facie case in their favour. It has also been recorded that the application of a Chinese company seeking cancellation of the registration of the design of the plaintiffs-respondents has already been rejected by the competent authority and, therefore, in all probabilities the application of the defendants-appellants in this regard may also not succeed and, therefore, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. 8. In response to the second aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submits that the application of the Chinese company seeking cancellation of the registration of the design of the plaintiffs-respondents has been rejected on a technical ground and not on merits and as such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the application of the defendants-appellants would also be rejected. 9. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs-respondents have a registered design prior in time and the said registration till date has not been cancelled, though the application of the defendantsappellants seeking its cancellation under Sec. 19 of the Act may be pending. 10. It may not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiffsrespondents have also applied for the cancellation of the design of the defendants-appellants, which has been registered subsequently in the year 2019. 11. It is also admitted to the parties that the directions have already been issued by the High Court of Calcutta directing the competent authority to decide the application filed by the defendants-appellants for the cancellation of the registered design of the plaintiffs-respondents expeditiously. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants apprehends that once the learned Single Judge has expressed opinion on the merits, the competent authority would be bound by the same and his decision may not be fair and impartial. 13. The aforesaid difficulty apprehended by the learned counsel can be taken care of by us by issuing certain directions to the competent authority 14. 13. The aforesaid difficulty apprehended by the learned counsel can be taken care of by us by issuing certain directions to the competent authority 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the Court in granting the injunction has found that the plaintiffsrespondents have made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour, we are of the opinion that the matter requires no interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It may also not be out of place to mention that in case the defendants-appellants are allowed to continue copying the registered design of the plaintiffs-respondents, the public at large would stand deceived, inasmuch as the product manufactured by the defendant-appellants is deceptive. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the application of the defendants-appellants filed under Sec. 19 of the Act, most expeditiously, preferably on the next date itself, or within the maximum period of four months in case it is not possible to decide it on the date immediately fixed, or on dates which may be fixed in the near future. The competent authority in deciding the said application, shall not be influenced by any observation or finding which may have been recorded by the learned Single Judge, or in this order and the same shall be considered and decided independently on its own merits as per the evidence brought on record. It goes without saying that the parties will cooperate with the hearing of the matter before the competent authority and would not seek any unnecessary adjournments, and that the competent authority will not allow any adjournment otherwise than by imposing heavy cost at its discretion. 15. This order will not affect the expeditious hearing and disposal of the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for the cancellation of the registered design of the defendants-appellants, which may have been tagged or directed to be decided with that of the application of the defendants-appellants. 16. The appeal is dismissed with the above directions.