CRP 34/2011 BEFORE HON\BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Mr. OP Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. JI Borbh uiya, learned counsel for the sole respondent. This revision application under article 227 of the constitution of India read wi th Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order date d 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2009. By this impugned judgment the appellate court has affirmed the Trial Court’s Ord er refusing grant of injunction. The settled position of law is that the High Court should be slow and circumspe ct to interfere with the interim orders either granting or rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. In the case before me, the revision application has been filed by the plaintiff on the ground that Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 5.6.2009 be tween the petitioner and the respondent is against public policy. The aforesaid Memorandum of understanding was executed between the appellant and her step-son whereby the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- per month for running a r estaurant under the name and style of M/S Raja Restaurant. Mr. Bhati submitted that since the respondent is the step-son of the petitioner, the aforesaid clause is against public policy. In my considered opinion, the ground taken by the petitioner can be examined onl y after full trial. Besides this, there are concurrent findings that the petitio ner has failed to fulfil all the pre-conditions for granting temporary injunctio n. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision petitioner. Consequently, it is dismissed.