PANKAJ MITHAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents and with their consent the petition is being finally decided at this stage itself. On the petitioners' interim injunction application in the suit initially an ex parte injunction was granted but subsequently the injunction application was rejected. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2010 by means of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2010 before the Court below in appeal.
(2.) IN appeal they filed an application 15-C alongwith an affidavit to take on record certain new documents which were not part of the record of the Trial Court for the purposes of disposal of the injunction matter. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.9.2012. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection of the above application on the ground that there is no provision in Code of Civil Procedure for permitting additional evidence in a miscellaneous appeal is totally erroneous.
(3.) ORDINARILY , an application of grant of interim injunction is decided on the basis of affidavits and the material documents produced with them without waiting for the evidence to come in the regular manner. Therefore, any relevant document which may have been left out from production initially can be brought on record subsequently with the leave of the Court provided it is found to be material for the purposes of effective adjudication of the injunction matter. Such material can also be produced in a miscellaneous appeal preferred against the order of the Trial Court refusing or allowing interim injunction.;