( 1 ) THIS matter illustrates what injury, damage and injustice a long lasting interim injunction can do to a defendant who succeeds finally. The question that arises here is whether such injury and injustice is redressable or is without a remedy. Does our system of administration of justice administer justice or injustice. If injustice and injury results by an interim injunction obtained by a party and granted by Courts, can the aggrieved party ask for compensation on proof of direct damage suffered by it? The appellant contends that the interim injunction obtained by it had judicial sanction and, therefore, even if the appellant ultimately failed and even if any direct damage is proved to the other side, it cannot be redressed and the Court cannot give any relief.

( 2 ) THE learned City Civil Court Judge had held that the appellant is liable in tort of abuse of process of Court and has passed a decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with costs and interest in Civil Suit No. 4107/77. Hence the present appeal by the defendant.

( 3 ) AT the admission hearing of this appeal, record and proceedings were called for and at the hearing the learned counsel for the appellant has extensively referred to the relevant material pleadings, documents and evidence. The tort of abuse of process of Court arises from the previous litigation. In 1961-62, Liberty Theatre of Ahmedabad had vested in Court Receivers-trustee, in Insolvency Petition No. 45/54. It belonged to the insolvent debtors who had leased the theatre at a monthly rent of Rs. 1731/- plus electric charges to a firm Liberty Talkies (old lessee) of which Mehbubmiya Ahmedmiya Faruki and Shambhuprasad Raval were the partners. They surrendered their lease-hold rights in favour of the Court receivers-trustees. Under a duly sanctioned compensation deed the receivers-trustees were authorised to sell the theatre and accordingly on 28th Aug. , 1963 the receiver-trustees sold the theatre and handed over the vacant possession of the theatre for a sum of Rs. Two Lacs (Rs. 1,30,000/- for the theatre and Rs. 70,000/- for the machinery etc.) to Baldevdas Shivlal (plaintiff 1 in the present proceedings and whose heirs are respondents 1, 1a and 1b in this appeal ). Plaintiff 1 the purchaser leased out the theatre to plaintiff No. 2 (respondent 2 herein) at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- for the theatre and Rs. 1500/- for the machinery and fixtures i. e. total Rs. 4000/- per month, and the plaintiff 1 handed over the possession of the theatre to the new lessee-plaintiff 2. On the same day i. e. 28-8-63 plaintiff No. 2 entered into the agreement with M/s. Shah and Co. to exhibit the movies supplied by M/s. Shah and Co. who were to pay weekly hire charges of Rs. 3500/ -.

( 4 ) ON coming to know of this, the present appellant (M/s. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd.) filed H. R. P. Suit No. 1465/63 in the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court on 1st Sept. 1963 alleging that there was a contract between them (Filmistan and the firm of Liberty Cinema, the original tenant) dt. 27-11-54 (Ex. 113) to exhibit the films supplied by Filmistan, who were to pay weekly hire charges of Rs. 1450/- which was increased from time to time and in 1962-63 it was Rs. 2300/- per week (Ex. 112 ). The present appellant Filmistan claimed in that suit that it was a lessee or a sub-lessee and on the original lessee (the firm of Liberty Cinema) surrendering their lease-hold rights to the receivers trustees, the appellant company became a direct tenant and was entitled to possession and to exhibit films; and on that basis it prayed for perpetual injunction against the present plaintiffs (who are defendants in the suit) regarding possession, disposal, exhibiting any film whatsoever, alter, demolishing or renovating the theatre, etc.

( 5 ) THE present appellant also prayed for interim injunction in similar terms as per Para 21 (a) (1) of the injunction application which is at Ex. 111 along with order thereon