BHUPENDRA STEEL Vs. KRISHNA EXPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from order is directed against the order dated 11th August, 1998 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No. 18, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 5 (notice of motion) in Civil Suit No.3266 of 1998 whereunder the ad-interim relief granted by the Trial Court earlier has been vacated.

(2.) The learned counsel, for the parties do not dispute that the application Exh. 5 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). So this appeal is under Sec. 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code.

(3.) Grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code is discretionary and-equitable relief, though the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. An appeal against discretionary order or order of equitable relief under Sec. 104 read with Order 41 Rule l(r) of the Code is an appeal against interlocutory discretionary order, and an order passed in equitable jurisdiction, and the powers of the appellate Court in such appeal are not as wide as are of the appellate Court in a regular appeal against decree. Appellate Court hearing appeal under Sec. 104 read with Order 41 Rule 1 (r) of the Code will interfere with discretionary order by the Court of first instance, and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. So an appeal against a discretionary order can conveniently be said to be an appeal on principle. In such case the appellate Court will not reassess the material and reach to a conclusion different from the one reached by the learned Trial Court 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 judicious manner, the fact that this Court as appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the Trial Court exercising discretion.