THAKUR, J, J. ( 1 ) IN a passing off action brought before a Single Judge of this Court on the original side, the plaintiff appellant made an application for an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and assignees from entering into any agreement and/or enforcing any commercial arrangement among themselves or with any third party with a view to passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff pending final disposal of the suit. The learned Single Judge has by the order impugned in this appeal dismissed the said application, on the ground that the agreement which the plaintiff appellant sought to prevent had already been entered into between defendants No. 1 and 2 on 14th August, 2006 and 14th september, 2006, i. e. much prior to the filing of the suit and the applications. ( 2 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Manmohan Singh argued that the prayer made by the plaintiff was two fold, viz. , (i) restraining the defendants from entering into any collaboration agreement; and (ii) restraining them from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff appellant. He urged that while the first part of the prayer may have become infructuous for the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge, the second part of the prayer made by the plaintiff ought to have been examined on its merits and disposed of in accordance with law. Inasmuch as the Single Judge failed to do so, argues Mr. Singh, he committed an error. ( 3 ) ON behalf of respondent No. 1, it was on the other hand submitted by mr. Nayyar that the prayer made in the interim application was limited to an order of injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering into a collaboration agreement. There was, according to Mr. Nayyar, no prayer for an injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. There was therefore no occasion for the learned Single Judge to examine the question as to whether the defendants were actually passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff, nor was there any room for issuing any injunction in that regard. There was therefore no occasion for the learned Single Judge to examine the question as to whether the defendants were actually passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff, nor was there any room for issuing any injunction in that regard. ( 4 ) IT is in our view unnecessary to go into the question whether the prayer made in the application was wide enough to embrace within itself both the aspects pointed out by Mr. Manmohan Singh. The fact of the matter is that the learned Single Judge has not examined the question whether the defendants were passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. That may be so because there was no specific prayer in the application to that effect. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order does not examine that aspect nor can it prevent the plaintiff from making a fresh application seeking an injunction against the defendants restraining them from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. As and when any such application is made, the Court shall have to examine and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The dismissal of the earlier application for injunction would not, in that case, prejudice the making of any such application nor shall the said order be interpreted to be the expression of any opinion regarding the appellant's claim for an injunction on the question of passing off. ( 5 ) THE appeal is, with the above observations, disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We make it clear that in case any such application is filed, the defendants shall be entitled to oppose the same on all such grounds as are legally available to them.