GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties and perused lower Court records. Plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 had challenged the order dated 23.11.2000, passed by 5th Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby their prayer for interim injunction has been refused. Earlier they had filed Suit No. 199 of 1993 in Calcutta High Court for declaration that Sri S.S. Malik ceased to be the Managing director of the Bihar Air Products Limited and for injunction restraining him from acting and/or holding himself as Managing director or Director thereof and for mandatory injunction directing the company to concur in the appointment of a nominee of Asiatic Oxygen Limited as Managing Director thereof. On 9.5.1993 an interim injunction restraining Sri Malik from acting as Director/Managing director and not to give effect to any resolution passed in the Boards meeting without leave of the Court was passed which was made absolute on 18.7.1996. Sri Malik as well as Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited filed an appeal against the said order before Division Bench. On 18.5.2000 Division Bench held that the suit was not maintainable as Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction over the matter and directed for return of the plaint. Plaint was returned on 9.6.2000 and the same was tiled on 13.6.2000 before Jamshedpur Court and was registered as Title Suit No. 63 of 2000. On 7.7.2000 an application for temporary injunction was filed therein, which was rejected on 23.11.2000 with following observations : "If at all any wrong will be found, the party or parties having grievances will be redressed at the time of final adjudication of the suit and this order passed on the point of injunction will not affect final adjudication after full trial, all the defendants have as yet not filed their written statements."
(2.) IT is pointed out at Bar that by now defendants written statement have already been filed and issues have also been suggested but have not been framed by the Court as yet. Defendants had also prayed for deciding question of maintainability of the suit, which was refused on 25.8.2000. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as written statements have already been filed, after framing of issues, defendants are at liberty to file a petition under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure to decide question of maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue. After disposal of petitioner under Order XIV, Rule 2, if so advised, plaintiffs are at liberty to file a fresh application for interim injunctions if any, which may be considered and disposed of on its own merit and in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the impugned order dated 23.11.2000. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations/directions.
(3.) APPEAL disposed of.;