Ex proprio molu we questioned jurisdiction over this appeal taken by defendant on July 19, 1984 from a judgment granting a preliminary injunction on June 15. Such an appeal must be taken within fifteen days from the date of the judgment. LSA-C. C.P. Art. 3612.

*1191That plaintiff moved for a new trial on June 22 did not have the effect of extending his time to take the appeal. Cuccia v. Bozeman, 316 So.2d 800 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); May v. Jackson Brewing Co., Inc., 275 So.2d 201 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ON REHEARING

The record does not support appellants’ argument that the judgment appealed from involved a permanent injunction. The trial was scheduled by a rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and the judgment specifically orders that a preliminary injunction issue. There was no stipulation that the trial of the rule would amount to a trial on the merits of a permanent injunction.

Brickman v. Board, 363 So.2d 86 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978) is inapposite. This was an appeal from a judgment which dismissed plaintiffs petition for a permanent injunction as well as a preliminary injunction. The judgment now under consideration is one relating only to a preliminary injunction and is therefore governed by C.C.P. Art. 3612.

REHEARING DENIED.