Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. Next question which arises is as to whether this Court is precluded from entertaining the second application owing to the appeal having been preferred and dismissed; whether the doctrine of merger comes in the way of this Court exercising the power. While there can be no doubt that the order of this Court dismissing the first application has merged in the order of the Appellate Court, but in my view, a second application on the grounds culled out above would still not lie before the Appellate Court but would lie before this Court only. Firstly, as aforesaid Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC is expressly empowering the Court which granted the injunction. There can be cases where the proceedings of interlocutory injunction have gone right till the Court of last resort. The legislature could have provided that the application under Rule 4 would lie only before the Court last dealing with the said matter. However, it is not so provided. There is yet another reason for the same. The whole purpose of providing a hierarchy of appeal is to obviate a human error and provide remedy thereagainst. The purpose is for the Appellate Court to examine the matter brought before it in this perspective. However, when it has not been examined by the first Court as to whether the injunction is to be granted or vacated owing to change in circumstances or undue hardship, requiring the second application to be filed before the Appellate Court only which had last dealt with the matter would amount to doing away with the provisions of appeal. Unless this court gives reasons for entertaining, allowing, dismissing the application, no appeal there against would be possible.