IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) No. 1690 OF 2010 Subhash Chandra Chabbra …..Petitioner. Versus M/s Rishi Woolen Mill ……....Respondent Present : Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Date of Decision: 28.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was a defendant in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction being Original Suit No. 135 of 2006 M/s Rishi Woolen Mill Vs. Subhash Chandra Chabbra. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, which was allowed by the trial Court on 9.3.2010 stating that prima facie the plaintiff has been able to make out his case for granting temporary injunction and balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and if the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, it would cause a great loss to the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hardiwar being Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2010 Subhash Chandra Chabbra Vs. Rishi Woolen Mill, which was also dismissed on 21.9.2010 and the preliminary findings arrived at by the trial Court were upheld. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the appellate Court. 3. Perused the order dated 9.3.2010 and order dated 21.9.2010. This Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the decision making process arrived at by the trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court. There is a categorical finding on the three established tenets, which are necessary for grant of temporary injunction. Since this Court finds no 2 infirmity in the decision making process, it would not be proper to interfere in the present writ petition. This writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant states that the plaintiff/respondent has only been able to make out his case prima facie, whereas a large plethora of documents which are with the petitioner/defendant have not been considered. This, however, is a matter of trial and not to be considered by this Court. Any delay in the matter will cause irreparable loss as it has been held by the Court below. On these set of fact and in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the trial Court should consider the submissions of the petitioner / defendant and after hearing both the parties decide the matter finally as expeditiously as possible. It is, however, clarified that no interference is being made in the proceedings of the trial Court. The defendant is at liberty to move a proper application before the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter and in the light what has been stated by this Court, the trial Court will hear and dispose of the matter. 4. This writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 28.9.2010 Rathour