The power to issue an injunction is a discretionary one vested in a Court to be exercised for the ends of justice, having regard to the circumstances of each case.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the order of Mody J., sitting on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, passed on the notice of motion taken out by the appellants to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the suit filed by them in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, hereinafter called the Kakinada suit. The material facts relevant to the question raised are as follows : The appellants agreed to purchase from the respondents iron ore under four contracts. They also entered into three contracts with the respondents to act as their selling agents, and one of these contracts was dated August 10, 1956, and the other two were of August 30, 1956. All the said contracts expressly provided that all suits and legal proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of or in relation to the said contracts were to be instituted in Courts in Bombay City only. On January 23, 1957, the respondents filed a suit O. S. No. 16 of 1957, in the Kakinada Court against the appellants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,150 alleged to be balance due under the contract dated August 10, 1956, along with interest thereon, and sum of Rs. 46,562 alleged to be balance due for goods supplied under the contract dated October 17, 1956. It may be mentioned at this stage that there is a controversy between the parties as regards the contract dated October 17, 1956, the respondents alleging that the parties entered into a new contract on the said date in cancellation of that dated August 30, 1956, and the appellants stating that the alleged contract was not in cancellation of the earlier contract of August 30, 1956 but was only to confirm the terms of the earlier contract with a concession shown to the respondents enabling them to supply only 3,000 tons of iron ore instead of 7,000 tons. The said suit was filed on January 23, 1957. To that suit, the appellants, their partners and the Manager of their firm were made parties. Notices were served on them on August 8, 1957. At first there was an order for ex parte hearing, but later on the ex parte order was set aside. The appellants (defendants in the Kakinada Court) filed their written-statement on September 17, 1957, denying inter alia, the existence of the contract dated October 17, 1957, and also pleading that the Kakinada Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On November 25, 1957, issues were framed, and one of them was whether the Kakinada Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On January 21, 1958 i.e., one year after the institution of the suit in the Kakinda Court, the appellants filed a suit, Suit No. 62 of 1958, on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court claiming to recover a sum of Rs. 74,346-9-0 from the respondents. In that suit, the appellants claimed the following four items, totalling a sum of Rs, 74,346-9-0 :

1. Amount due the agreement recorded in letter dated 28th October 1956. Rs. 15,861-4-0.

2. Amount which the plaintiffs are obliged to pay Messrs. Metailmex Praha as described in para 10 of the plaint. Rs. 7,046-7-0.

3. Amount which the plaintiffs are obliged to pay Messrs. Toscho Co. Ltd., as described in para, 11 of the plaint. Rs. 30,462-4-0.

4. Amount paid by plaintiffs for and on behalf of the defendants to Messrs. T. S. R. & Co. as described in para, 12 of the plaint. Rs. 20,976-10-0.

_____________

Total. ... Rs. 74,346-9-0.

_____________

The first item is alleged to represent the amount settled as payable by the respondents to the appellants on the settlement of the disputes between them in regard to the aforesaid contracts. Items 2 and 3 are the amounts alleged to have been paid by the appellants for and one behalf of the respondents to the persons who purchased goods of the respondents towards destinational shortage. The last item is said to be the amount paid by the appellants to the clearing agents of the respondents firm by honouring a hundi drawn on the respondents by the clearin