( 1 ) WHAT should be the approach of the court in passing interim or interlocutory order in matters where imposition and recovery of tax, octroi, cess or revenue is questioned by a party ? Can the Court be oblivious of the social-economic consequences of its orders ? How and by taking into consideration which factors, the question as to prima facie Case, balance of convenience and irretrievable harm ought to be decided ?

( 2 ) THE petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacture of refrigeration gas and for the said purpose has its factory premises on Survey No. 16/3,26 and 27 within the revenue limits of Respondent No. 1 Ranjitnagar Gram Panchayat. The petitioner company instituted a legal battle by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 1996 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Devgadh Baria on 12. 8. 1996 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent Panchayat from recovering octroi from the petitioner company on the following main two grounds: (1) that the petitioner company is not within the panchayat limit and area and territorial jurisdiction of the Respondent panchayat and, therefore, the company is not liable to pay any octroi duty; (2) that the action of the Respondent panchayat of seeking to recover octroi duty from the petitioner company was without following the mandatory proceedures as prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayat (Taxes and Fees) Rules, 1964

( 3 ) THE Trial Court by its order dated 12. 8. 1996 granted ex-parte (ad-interim) injunction restraining the Respondent panchayat, its officers and servants from recovering octroi duty from the petitioner company in respect of the goods brought by the petitioner comapny in its factory premises finding that injury would be caused to the petitioner company if the injunction as prayed for was not granted.

( 4 ) THE Respondent Panchayat questioned the order of an-interim ex-parte injunction by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1996 in the District Court, Panchmahals at godhra under Order 43, Rule l (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) which came be allowed on 23. 8. 1996. Thus, the order of the Trial Court granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Respondent Panchayat from levying and recovering octroi, dated 12. 8. 1996 came to be quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the panchayat. Hence, this revision under Sec. 115 of the Code at the instance of the petitioner company, original plaintiff.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. K. S. Nanavati while appearing for the petitioner company has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court in allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the order of the Trial court granting ex-parte (ad-interim) injunction against the Respondent Panchayat is perverse, unjust and illegal. He has also contended that the action of the Respondent Panchayat of passing a resolution to levy octroi was in gross breach of mandatory statutory provisions and procedure as prescribed in Rules 3 and 4 of the 1964 Rules. He also submitted that premises of the petitioner company are outside the territorial limit of the panchayat area. Thus, it was the forcefully argued that the petitioner company is outside the jurisdiction and octroiablc limit of the respondent panchayat and, therefore, the action of the Respondent panchayat was null and void. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the Trial court rightly granted the ad-interim ex-pane injunction which was wrongly set aside by the District Court.

( 6 ) THE aforesaid submissions are traversed and controverted by the learned advocate mr. M. B. Gandhi for Respondent Panchayat and Mr. Arun H. Mehta for Respondent No. 2. They have vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of the District Court is fully justified and requires no interference in a limited jurisdictional sweep of revision under Sec. 115 of the Code.

( 7 ) IT was repeatedly suggested during the course o