CHAMPSEY BHIMJI AND CO Vs. JAMNA FLOUR MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal we do not think it necessary to trouble the learned Advocate General to reply on behalf of the plaintiffs. The two grounds urged before us in support of the appeal are, firstly that this Court has no power to make an order of a mandatory nature on an interlocutory application, and secondly, on the merits that this order should not have been made.

(2.) Having regard to the very clear wording of Order xxxix, Rule 2, and to the fact that this Court has always exercised the power of remedying an injury or wrong by a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application, I have no doubt whatever that this Court has power to make a mandatory order on an interlocutory application. If the Court had no such power it would be in the power of a party to cause insufferable inconvenience and grave injury to another during the whole time that would elapse between the commission of the wrongful act and the hearing of the suit filed to remedy the wrong and redress the injury.

(3.) Then as to the merits, it is desirable to say as little as possible as the whole matter remains to be investigated before Mr. Justice Macleod on the 6th of July. It would be sufficient for us to say that an order on an application of this kind is purely within the discretion of the learned Judge who hears the application.