Karnataka High Court

Gurudeva Brahmanand Trust Committee vs Sankappa S/O Ningappa Banavannavar on 5 November, 2024

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173
                                                       WP No. 104694 of 2024




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                       DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                             BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                          WRIT PETITION NO.104694 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   GURUDEVA BRAHMANAND TRUST COMMITTEE,
                   R/BY ITS PRESIDENT SANGAPPA
                   S/O. CHENABASAPPA UPASI,
                   AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   TRUST, SAUNSHI, TQ: KUNDGOL,
                   DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   SANKAPPA
                        S/O. NINGAPPA BANAVANNAVAR,
                        AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
                        TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
Digitally signed
                        DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: High     2.   CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MAHADEVAPPA
Court of
Karnataka               KARDIKOPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O:TABAKADHONNIHALLI,,
                        TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                        DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.

                   3.   SANGAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA TADAS,
                        AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
                        TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                        DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.

                   4.   NIJAGUNAPPA
                        S/O. MARUTEPPA KSHIRASAGAR,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173
                                    WP No. 104694 of 2024




     AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
     TQ: KALAGHATAGI.
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.

5.   SIDDAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA GOVINDANAVAR,
     AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
     TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.

6.   SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. ULAVAPPA KADAHALLI,
     AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
     TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.

7.   YELLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA HAROGERI,
     AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
     TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

8.   NINGAPPA S/O. CHANABASAPPA TADAS,
     AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
     TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

9.   HOLEPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA SALI,
     AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI, T
     Q: KALAGHATAGI,
     DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

10. SHAREEFA S/O. SIDDAPPA HARIJAN,
    AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
    TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
    DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

11. MAHADEVAGOUDA
    S/O. VIRANAGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDAR,
    AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
    TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                               -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173
                                      WP No. 104694 of 2024




    DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

12. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. SANGAPPA TIPPANNAVAR,
    AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
    TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
    DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.

13. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA UPPAR,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: TABAKADHONNIHALLI,
    TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
    DIST: DHARWAD - 580028.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.H.HEGDE, SRI S.S.HEGDE AND
SRI R.N.KUNTAGERI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R5, R7 TO R10;
NOTICE ISSUED TO R5 AND R11 ARE
SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN

THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

16/07/2024 PASSED IN M.A. NO. 07/2023 BY THE COURT OF

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE-L AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

AND ETC.,


     THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                                         -4-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173
                                                  WP No. 104694 of 2024




                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff

challenging the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in

M.A.No.7/2023 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kalaghatagi1.

2. The relevant facts leading to the present

writ petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in

O.S.No.11/2023 before the Civil Judge and JMFC,

Kalghatagi2 wherein the respondents herein arrayed as

defendants. The reliefs sought for in the suit are extracted

herein for ready reference.

"14. Prayer: That, the most respectfully and graciously prayed that, this hon'ble Court be please to pass decree in favour of plaintiff as under:-

(a) Kindly declare that, the illegally document executed by Defendants under the name and style as "Shree Gurudeva Siddeshwara Brahmanand Ashram Trust" vide dated

Hereinafter referred to as "the First Appellate Court"

Hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

24/11/2022 before the Sub-Registrar office Kalghatagi, Dist: Dharwad as illegal and null and void.

(b) Kindly restrain the Defendants from collecting any kind of illegal money, gift properties, etc from the public at large under the name of said Math/Ashram based on the illegal alleged document "Shree Gurudeva Siddeshwara Brahmanand Ashram Trust" vide dated 24/11/2022.

(c) Reserve the right of the plaintiff to amend the plaint as and when required from time to time.

(d) Cost of the suit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff."

3. In the said suit, the petitioners also filed

I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 19083 seeking temporary injunction. The

defendants entered appearance in the said suit and

contested the same by filing written statement as also

objections to I.A.No.1. The Trial Court by its order dated

Hereinafter referred to as "CPC"

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

10.08.2023 allowed the said application and passed the

following order:

"I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff/applicant U/o.39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby allowed.

The defendants are hereby restrained pendent lite from receiving any kind of money or monetary thing by way of cash, gift or any articles, properties and etc from the devotees or public under the name of Sri. Gurudev Siddeshwara Brahmanand Ashram, Trust registered on 24.11.2022.

However the plaintiff trust shall maintain accounts for everything received in the name of Math.

No order as to costs."

4. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred

M.A.No.7/2023. The plaintiffs entered appearance before

the First Appellate Court and contested the same. The First

Appellate Court by its judgment dated 16.07.2024 allowed

the appeal, set-aside the order dated 10.08.2023 passed

by the Trial Court and dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

plaintiff in the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed

the present appeal.

5. Heard the submissions of the learned

counsel, Sri.Prashant S Hosmani for the appellant/plaintiff

and learned counsel, Sri.S.S.Hegde appearing on behalf of

Sri.S.R.Hegde for respondents No.1 to 5, 7 to

10/defendants.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner

assailing the order of the First Appellate Court, contends

that the First Appellate Court has erroneously recorded a

finding that Section 92 of the CPC is applicable to the case

on hand and that the plaintiff is not authorized person to

file the suit. It is contended that such findings are ex-facie

erroneous and contrary to the settled legal position as well

as facts forthcoming from the record. It is further

contended that the First Appellate Court has erroneously

appreciated certain facts and recorded a finding that the

same are not brought to the notice of the Trial Court. It is

contended that the plaintiff - Trust having been

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

constituted vide Trust Deed which was registered on

30.07.2014 (Annexure-B) to the writ petition and

defendants having constituted another Trust vide Trust

Deed which is registered on 24.11.2022 with the same

objects and with a similar name as that of the plaintiff, is

seeking to mislead the general public and collect various

monetary cash, gift and articles from the devotees. Hence,

it is contended that the interference by the First Appellate

Court with the order of injunction granted by the Trial

Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this

Court. It is further contended that the other litigation does

not have any bearing to the present suit filed by the

plaintiff. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeal

and granting of the relief sought for.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents justifying the order passed by the First

Appellate Court, vehemently contends that there are

various other litigations pending between the parties and

various orders having been passed, the First Appellate

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

Court has rightly interfered with the injunction granted by

the Trial Court. It is further contended that the First

Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the relevant

factual matrix and set aside the order passed by the Trial

Court which ought not to be interfered with by this Court

in the present writ petition.

8. The submissions made by both the

learned counsel have been considered and the material on

record have been perused.

9. It is forthcoming that the plaintiff in the

suit for declaration filed I.A.No.I for temporary injunction.

I.A.No.I was opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court

while considering the prima facie case put forth by the

plaintiff, has recorded the following findings:

"13. Undisputedly, the revenue records of two properties which were gifted and sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of Math are standing in the names of Sri. Siddeshwara Swamigalu Brahamanand, Sri. Gurudev Brahanamand Ashram, Saunshi. Therefore it is prima facie evident that those two properties have been managed by the Sri. Gurudev Brahamanand Ashram, Saunshi and not

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

by the local Trust Committee. If the local Trust Committee has any right over those two properties, they should have changed the revenue entries into their names. The defendants are claiming that they are trustees and office bearers of Sri. Gurudev Siddeshwara Brahamanand Ashram Trust registered on 24.11.2022. Thus they have to state what made them to create another trust in the presence of earlier Committee i.e., Sri. Gurudev Brahamananda Trust Committee. Saunshi being managed by the main branch i.e., Saunshi Math.

14. It appears from the contents of letter dated 22.06.2023 being issued by the Secretary of Sri. Gurudev Brahamanand Paramanandwadi, ShishkanPrasaran Samste of Paramanandwadi, Raibag Taluka, one Abhinav Brahamanand Mahaswamigalu has got no power or right to deal with any of the properties of Math of Saunshi and other sub branches. Therefore it is prima facie clear that appointment of Abhinav Brahamanand Mahaswamigalu as Pitadhipati is under dispute. As such the legality of Trust Committee being formed by the defendants at the instance of alleged pitadhipati i.e. Abhinav Brahamanand Swamiji is a is a point for lis to be decided after adjudication.

15. The main trust, which was there from long ago as forthcoming from the revenue records of the properties, i.e., Sri Gurudev Brahamanand Trust Committee, Saunshi. The defendants have not disputed the legal affairs and existence of Sri. Gurudev Brahamanand Trust Committee. Whether the Sangappa Upasi who is stated to be acting president is having

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

capacity to represent the plaintiff will be decided on merits. However at this stage the religious business of Math and social service works of Math should not be affected. The name of the plaintiff and Committee formed by the defendants are little synonymous and same may create path to the devotees to loose faith on the Math. Therefore considering the documents on records this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case to go for trial."

(emphasis supplied)

10. Further, the Trial Court while considering

the aspect regarding balance of convenience and loss and

injury, has recorded the following findings:

"17. The documents produced by the plaintiff trust prima facie show that on 18.07.2013. 26.07.2015. 14.07.2016. 03.07.2017. 08.07.2022 and 27.06.2023, it has conducted many programmes in the Tabkadhonnihalli Math. The photos being produced by the plaintiff prima facie fortifies the contention of the plaintiff regarding its involvement in carrying with the affairs of the Math. The defendants have produced the documents which prima facie show regarding election of Pitadhipati. However the election of Pitadhipati has been disputed by the Secretary of Sri. Gurudev Brahamanand Shishkan Prasaran Saumste as per letter dated 26.03.2022. Other documents produced by the defendants are in respect of suit in O.S.No.279/2002. W.P.No.109304/2015, W.P.No.62431/2012. Review Petition No.4/2012,

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

Misc No.4/2012, RTCs and order passed in O.S.No.76/2015.

18. When the properties have been gifted and their revenue records have been standing in the name of Gurudev Brahamanand Trust Committee, Saunshi, i.e., the plaintiff, at this stage balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff as the present suit is instituted by it. If the present application is not allowed, the defendants who have constituted another trust may collect gifts and things from the devotees under the name of Gurudev Siddeshwara Brahamanand Ashram Trust which is subsequently came into existence. Until rights of the defendants as members of the committee is being recognized by the court of law, as it appears business of Math being carried out by the plaintiff, same should not be affected. Therefore considering the societal interest and to keep faith of the devotees on the Math and also in order to avoid intervention into the smooth administration of Math and its properties, it is quite necessary to restrain the defendants from taking any gifts or properties in the name of Math. Otherwise injustice would be caused to the very Math and victims are neither the defendants nor the plaintiff, but are people at large who have kept faith on the Math and students who are getting education under the control of Math."

(emphasis supplied)

11. It is forthcoming that the Trial Court has

noticed that two properties of the plaintiff were gifted and

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

sold by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and that

the same was managed by the plaintiff. Further, the Trial

Court has noticed that the defendants have subsequently

constituted a Trust which has been registered on

24.11.2022. The Trial Court also noticed the various

litigations which pertain to the appointment of the

Peethadhipati of the Trust. The Trial Court has also

considered the balance of convenience and the confusion

that the tactics of the defendants will cause to the

activities of the plaintiff and has granted the injunction as

sought for.

12. The First Appellate Court while considering

the appeal filed by the defendants has recorded the

following findings:

"17. In the present case on hand the plaintiff is claiming to be the president of trust and there is allegation of misuse of name of trust by defendants trust. Provisions Sec.92 of CPC is applicable to present case on hand. The plaintiff is alleged to be the president of plaintiff's math. It is alleged that the plaintiff in violation of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to maintain status quo has created plaintiff's trust in the year 2014. However, order copy of

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

Hon'ble High Court is not produced but this fact is not disputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not authorized person to file the suit on behalf of math. No resolution copy was produced. The plaintiff himself being the alleged president has filed applications to the revenue authority and police for cancellation of defendants trust. There was question of maintainability of suit and right of plaintiff to sue are involved. The plaintiff was self declared president and no documents to show that he was the authorized person.

18. The trust of plaintiff by name Shree Gurudev Brahmanand Trust committee and the trust registered in the name of defendant No.1 Shree Gurudev Siddeshwar Brahmanand Ashram Trust are different and they are different entities. Both the trust are situated at different places. The produced by defendants disclose that the plaintiff in previous proceedings pertaining to plaintiff trust he has made an attempt to get his name entered as president and same was rejected. As per order to Hon'ble High Court plaintiff is restrained from registering another trust inspite of it he got registered another trust. These facts are not brought to the notice of trial court. The maintainability of suit u/sec. 92 of CPC is also not plea before the trial court. The plaintiff has not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec. 92 of CPC. In the appeal this aspect cannot be taken into consideration."

(emphasis supplied)

13. It is forthcoming that the First Appellate

Court while considering the appeal has recorded a finding

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

that Section 92 of the CPC is applicable to the present

case and the question of maintainability of the suit and

right of plaintiff to sue are involved. In this regard,

reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on

the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of DR.NARASIMHALU NANDINI VS. JANATHA

TRUST4, wherein, this Court has held as follows:

"13. The said Section 92 of CPC has been introduced for the purposes of proper administration of a trust and as such, deals with the internal management of the trust and the management of the trust properties.

14. The suit filed by the trust against a third party as done in this case, in my considered opinion would not come within the purview of Section 92 of CPC. The said suit having been filed in the normal operation of the trust for the trust to preserve and protect its properties and or claim such other properties and not relating to the management of the trust would be outside the purview of Section 92 of CPC. If such an interpretation is taken up, then a public charitable trust would never be able to file any suit for bare injunction, recovery of money, specific performance,

W.P No.203194/2022 dated 19.06.2023

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

declaration or the like, thus, impending effective functioning and operation of the trust."

14. It is clear from the dicta laid down by this

Court in the case of DR.NARASIMHALU4 that Section 92

of the CPC is for the purpose of proper administration of a

trust and deals with the internal management of the trust

and its properties. As rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the present suit was having

been filed against the defendants who were third parties,

the suit would not come within the purview of Section 92

of the CPC. Hence, the finding recorded by the Trial Court

that the question of maintainability of suit would arise,

having regard to Section 92 of the CPC is erroneous and

liable to be interfered with.

15. The First Appellate Court has also

recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not an authorized

person to file the suit on behalf of Math and no resolution

copy is produced. However, a copy of the resolution is also

produced. In the resolution dated 10.01.2023, a copy of

which is also produced in the present writ petition,

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

discloses that the representative of the petitioner/plaintiff

herein is an authorized person to file the suit on behalf of

math. Hence, the said finding of the First Appellate Court

is contrary to the material available on record and is liable

to be interfered with.

16. The First Appellate Court has also

recorded a finding that this Court has restrained the

plaintiff from registering another trust and the said facts

are not brought to the notice of the Trial Court. However,

the First Appellate Court has not referred to any specific

order passed by this Court in any proceedings. Hence, the

said finding is also contrary to the material available on

record.

17. Although learned counsel for the

respondent vehemently seeks to contend regarding the

pendency of various disputes before the Trial Court as well

as the orders passed by this Court, has been rightly

noticed by the Trial Court, the other disputes are with

regard to the appointment of the Peethadhipati and do not

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

pertain to the present dispute with respect to which the

suit has been filed.

18. The Trial Court has in detail appreciated

the contentions put forth by the plaintiff as well as the

defendants and has, after evaluating the case put forth by

both the parties, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff

has demonstrated a prima facie case as also recorded a

finding that the balance of convenience lies in favour of

the plaintiff and that injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if

an interim injunction is not granted. The First Appellate

Court without interfering with the said findings recorded

by the Trial Court regarding the prima facie case made out

by the plaintiff, balance of convenience as well as loss and

injury recorded by the Trial Court, has set aside the order

passed by the Trial Court.

19. The legal position as to the scope of

interference in an appeal against the interim injunction

granted by the Trial Court was came up for consideration

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHD.

- 19 -

                                            NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173





MEHTAB        KHAN      AND     OTHERS      VS.    KHUSHNUMA

IBRAHIM KHAN5, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as follows:

20. "In a situation where the learned Trial Court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the appellate court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The appellate court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order. While we must not be understood to have said that the appellate court was wrong in its conclusions what is sought to be emphasized is that as long as the view of the trial court was a possible view the appellate court should not have interfered with the same following the

(2013) 9 SCC 221

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

virtually settled principles of law in this regard as laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd6.

21. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment which is extracted below would amply sum up the situation:

( Wander Ltd. Case5 , SCC p. 533)

"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge.

In such appeals, 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, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court

1990 Supp SCC 727

- 21 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) (P) Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph7: (AIR p. 1159, para 9)

'9.... These principles are well established; but, as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston8 : (AC p.138)

"...The law as to the reversal by a Court of Appeal of an order made by [a] Judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well- settled principles in an individual case."

The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle."

(emphasis supplied)

20. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of LAXMIKANT.V.PATEL VS. CHETANBHAI SHAH

AND ANOTHER9 has held as follows:

AIR 1960 SC 1156 : (1960) 3 SCR 713

1942 AC 130 : (1941) 2 AII ER 245 (HL)

2002 (3) SCC

- 22 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

"17. We are conscious of the law that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the trial court and substitute its own discretion therefor except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the order of the courts under scrutiny ignores the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably ad in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion (see Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.10 and N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn.11)."

21. It is forthcoming from the settled position

of law as noticed above that in an appeal against a

1990 Supp SCC 727

(1996) 5 SCC 714

- 23 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16173

discretionary order, the Appellate Court ought not to

ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion by the

Trial Court, unless the said discretion is demonstrated to

have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely

or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of

law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction.