Consideration Of Injunction Application Can’t Be Equated With Holding Of Full-Fledged Trial Of Suit Itself Where Decision Made Based On Evidence: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court observed that the consideration of injunction application cannot be equated with holding of full-fledged trial of suit itself where decision is made on the basis of primary and secondary evidence.
The Court observed thus in a civil miscellaneous application preferred by a company seeking review of the final judgment and order of the High Court passed in First Appeal by which the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the injunction application with certain directions.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “It is well settled that injunction application is decided on the basis of stand taken in the affidavits as well as documents annexed thereto and focus is on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss only. The consideration of an injunction application cannot be equated with holding of full-fledged trial of the suit itself where decision is made on the basis of primary and secondary evidence led by the parties during the course of trial.”
Senior Advocate T.P. Singh appeared for the applicants while Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan appeared for the opposite party.
In this case, pursuant to the order of remand, the trial court had already decided the injunction application afresh by an order, against which, First Appeal From Order No.411 of 2024 (M/s M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Iftikhar Alam) was filed by the plaintiff-applicants before the High Court that was connected with the review application.
There were following two aspects associated with the present review application –
(i) Maintainability/entertainability of the review application in view of the subsequent order passed by the trial court, and
(ii) Merits of grounds, on which review has been sought.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “Before this Court, at the time of hearing of the appeal, both the parties vehemently pressed documents annexed to their affidavits, either before the Court below or before this Court and pressed and defended their alleged rights qua trademark as well as user/prior user of the product. Despite the same, this Court neither expressed any final or even tentative opinion on the merits of rival claims of the parties nor did it record any finding thereon, and, admittedly, the parties led additional evidence before the trial court in pursuance of the order of remand. If the documents already on record or those subsequently filed as additional evidence have or have not been considered or wrongly interpreted by the trial court in its subsequent order dated 30.01.2024, it may be a matter of scrutiny in pending appeal against the said order but cannot be a ground for reviewing the remand order.”
The Court concluded that it is not a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to review the order of remand.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the review application, though held maintainable.
Cause Title- M/s. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. Iftikhar Alam (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:73463)
Appearance:
Applicants: Senior Advocate T.P. Singh and Advocate Arvind Srivastava.
Opposite Party: Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan and Advocate Santosh Kumar Tripathi.