Suvidha Builders - Thro' Vahivatkarta vs Dilipsinh Pravinsinh on 10 February, 2004
15. This Court, while dealing with the case of Shrirang Developers & Others v/s Himmatlal Jamnalal Maniar, reported in 2003(2) GLH 680 has observed that the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. In the cited case, ld. Civil Judges had passed different orders. In one set of matters, the ld. Civil Judge had granted injunction and in other set of matters, the other ld. Civil Judge had not granted the injunction. In the present case, the very Court in the same suit viz. Civil Suit No. 81/2001 has passed the overlapping orders, if not contradictory in stricto senso. Now the balance is required to be struck at this interlocutory stage. The discretion exercised while dealing with application exh.30 in the lower Court, the ld. Judge has not either acted reasonably or in judicious manner. It is apparent that the Lower Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.