ORDER : Sudesh Bansal, J. 1. Heard counsel for both parties on civil miscellaneous appeal so also on application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by appellant and perused the record. 2. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC, assailing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, dismissing her application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit along with an application for temporary injunction under the provisions of Trademarks Act, 1999, alleging inter alia that she is a registered trademark holder of a trade-name "Ayurveda Sangraha", a book written and published by her deceased husband Sh. Govind Pareek and such trade-name is being used since 2005 onwards. Appellant make out a case against respondent-defendant that in the year 2023, she came to know that defendant has started publication of an ayurveda book in the name of "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha" which is deceptively similar to the trade-name of the ayurveda book, for which plaintiff is having registered trademark. Hence, respondent be restrained by way of temporary injunction, not to publish the ayurveda book using trade-name "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha". 4. Respondent-defendant resisted the application for temporary injunction and submitted that there is no similarity in the trade- name between "Ayurveda Sangraha" and "Dhananjay Ayurveda Sangraha" and further, the name 'ayurvedha' is a common name, on which no-one can claim proprietorship. In addition, it was submitted that the book sold and published by respondent- defendant is of entirely different size, colour combination and by apparent look of the two books, there is no possibility of confusion among their respective buyers, in respect of their similarity. Hence, application for temporary injunction is liable to be rejected. 5. In addition, it was submitted that the book sold and published by respondent- defendant is of entirely different size, colour combination and by apparent look of the two books, there is no possibility of confusion among their respective buyers, in respect of their similarity. Hence, application for temporary injunction is liable to be rejected. 5. The trial Court, after considering respective case of both parties and after appreciating the two books & other relevant documents, rejected the application for temporary injunction by recording a categorical fact finding in following manner:- ^^12- tgka rd mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds izdk'k esa gLrxr izdj.k dk laca/k gS] izkfFkZ;k ds fy, ;g lkfcr djuk vko';d gS fd vizkFkhZ ds }kjk izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) VsMekdZ ds uke dk bl izdkj iz;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS fd mDr nksuksa uke brus le:i gks] ftuls fdlh O;fDr ds izoafpr gksus o Hkwy esa iM+us dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gks rFkk ftlls izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) V?sMekdZ ds uke dh [;kfr ds mi;ksx o vigkfu o O;kikj dks uqdlku gksus dh laHkkouk gksA tSlk fd iwoZ esa foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS fd vizkFkhZ vf/koDrk }kjk nkSjkus cgl U;k;ky; ds le{k izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) V?sMekdZ ls feyrs&tqyrs uke dh iwoZ ls gh izpfyr fdrkcsa rFkk izkfFkZ;k dh o Lo;a dh fdrkcksa dks is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk ftuds doj ist dh QksVks izfr i=koyh ij gSA mDr iqLrdksa ds vkdkj] 'kCn] fp=.k bR;kfn dks ns[kus ek= ls ;g Li"Vr% ,d&nwljs ls fHkUu izrhr gksrh gSA vr% U;k;ky; ds erkuqlkj fdlh izdkj ;g laHko ugha gS fd dksbZ O;fDr bl Hkqykos esa iM+ tk;s fd izkfFkZ;k ds iathc) V?sMekdZ ^vk;qosZn&laxzg* uke dh iqLrd rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk fodz; dh tkus okyh ^/kuat; vk;qosZn laxzg* uke dh iqLrd leku gksA mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr nksuksa gh iqLrdksa ds doj ist ds QksVks] 'kCn bR;kfn lHkh Li"Vr% fHkUu nf'kZr gSA lkFk gh nksuksa iqLrdks dk vkdkj Hkh fHkUu gSA vr% fdlh izdkj ls bl U;k;ky; ds fouez erkuqlkj ;g nf'kZr ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ dh mDr iqLrd ds dkj.k dksbZ Hkh O;fDr Hkqykos esa vk; tk;s fd mDr iqLrd izkfFkZ;k dh gh gSA vr% ckn xkSj mijksDr foospu ds izdk'k esa izkfFkZ;k ds i{k esa fdlh izdkj izFke n`"V;k ekeyk cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vr% mDr fcUnq izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Having perused the front cover-page of both the books, available on record as also the original books shown by counsel for respondents during course of arguments, prima facie this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality and perversity in the fact findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order. 7. By way of application (IA No.1/2024) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, appellant-plaintiff sought to produce certain additional documents on record, including a copy of her trademark application, certificate of registration, a copy of application filed by respondent-defendant for registration of trademark & opposition application filed thereto etc. The additional documents though are undisputed documents, but the fact findings recorded by the trial Court, while dismissing application for temporary injunction, do not warrant interference even appreciation of these additional documents. Hence, at this stage, these additional documents do not support the case of appellant to improve prima face case in her favour, however, such additional documents can be produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court and same can be considered on its own merits by the trial Court, during course of suit's proceedings. At the stage of deciding instant civil misc. appeal, these additional documents do not render support to the case of appellant, therefore, application (IA No.1/2024) is hereby dismissed. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment delivered in case of Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India [1990 (Supp) SCC 727] , while discussing the scope and jurisdiction of the appellate court to interfere against the order of grant or refusal of application for temporary injunction, which is discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, observed and held as under:- "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion." 9. In an another judgment delivered in case of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited Vs. S.L. Vaswani [( 2010 ) 2 SCC 142 ] , the Apex Court, after considering the catena of several judgments in respect of appellate court's jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary order(s) passed by the trial Court, held and observed as under:- "22. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity." 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, dismissing application for temporary injunction. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Under Armour, INC Vs. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 2269] , on which counsel for appellant has placed reliance, was passed by the Delhi High Court in its original jurisdiction and not as an appellate court, therefore, the same does not render any support in favour of appellant at the appellate stage. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 2269] , on which counsel for appellant has placed reliance, was passed by the Delhi High Court in its original jurisdiction and not as an appellate court, therefore, the same does not render any support in favour of appellant at the appellate stage. The fact findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order, are based on material available on record and have not been shown to be perverse in any manner. 11. As a final result, instant civil misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, before parting with, it is hereby observed that the fact findings recorded by the trial Court in the order impugned or recorded by this Court in the present order, would not affect the case of either of the parties on merits to be considered and decided by the trial Court in the main suit. 12. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 13. Record be sent back.