DIGVIJAY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAPRAI BUCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had dismissed this appeal with costs on 17th October 1979. After the order was written the appellants' counsel requested that he be heard again and therefore I directed the matter to be re-posted this day as to be spoken to. Since the question to be decided in this appeal arises frequently, I think it necessary to write the following in modification of the order, dated 17th October 1979.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in a suit for injunction are the appellants. An interim application was filed for an injunction before the trial court. That was dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7 of 1979 filed against the said dismissal order is now pending before the Subordinate Judge's court, Trivandrum . Injunction Application No. 1344 (a) was filed in the said Civil Miscellaneous appeal again for an interim injunction. That was dismissed. Miscellaneous appeal is against that order.

(3.) THIS question fell for consideration before this Court in Chellappan V. K. P, Varghese AIR. 1964 Ker. 23 where Madhavan Nair, J. held relying upon the decisions in Umatur Robab v. Mahadeo Prasad A1r. 1941 All. 338 and Cherian Lookose v. Narayana Pillai Gopala Pillai 1958 KLT. 829 that appeal against such an order was barred under S 104 (2) Civil Procedure Code. To the same effect is the decision reported in Kalahastl v. P. C. M. Chetti AIR. 1975 mad. 3 I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in the above decisions. I hold that the appeal is barred under S. 104 (2) Civil Procedure code. I dismiss the appeal with costs Dismissed.