- (1.) By means of this petition, the Petitioner who is Plaintiff of the suit, aggrieved by rejection of the injunction application by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court, approached this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Vinod Sinha submitted that the findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court with regard to the question of facts, in order to reject the Petitioner's application, suffers from error of law. This submission has been denied by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
(2.) It is settled that this Court under power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse or suffers from manifest error of law. No such infirmity has been pointed out and because the Petitioner has approached this Court only at this stage of rejection of temporary injunction application, question of rights raised in the suit are yet to be decided by the trial court where the suit is pending. In these circumstances, as this stage, this Court refuses to exercise this discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of India. The petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) However, in the circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice, the trial court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously.;