( 1 ) ). Admit.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the learned Advocates, these appeals were taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THE appellants in both these appeals are original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and No. 3, respectively. (herinafter referred to as "the defendants Nos. 1. 2 and 3") and the respondent No. 1 in both these appeals is the original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff")in Civil Suit No. 161 of 1996 pending on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). Valsad.

( 4 ) IN the suit, the plaintiffs has claimed that it has invented a new process for manufacturing Aluminium Phosphide ("aip" for short) and Zinc Phosphide ("znp" for short) by substituting white/ yellow phosphorous for red phosphorous by conducting trial, experiment and research for a long period and is therefore, entitled to a declaration that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the right title to and interest in the new process invented by it and also for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from adopting, using and resorting to, in any manner whatsoever, form a new process as invented by the plaintiff for the manufacture of AIP and Znp by using any information, knowledge, know-how relating thereto or any drawing or material relating thereto and from selling such products in the open market or secretly and from divulging, passing on any information, documents, drawing descriptions etc. The plaintiff has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 10 crore from the defendants alleging that they hare committed illegal and wrongful act, breach of contract and breach of trust and thereby caused wrongful loss and damages to the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff has also filed application, Ex. 5, and applied for an interim relief claiming similar reliefs as claimed in the suit together with a relief for appointment of a Commissioner to make a local inspection of the premises of the factory, offices and houses of the defendants and to hold a scientific and technical or expert investigation in the subject matter of the suit i. e. new process invented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for appointment of a Receiver or some other fit and proper person as Receiver in respect of the impugned finished goods, equipments, machines, drawings, documents in possession of the defendants under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code with power to take possession thereof and deliver the same to the plaintiff for destruction.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge, on 3rd October, 1996, granted ad-interim injunction in terms of para 17 (l-A)and (l-B) of the application upto 1-11-1996 and issued urgent show cause notice to show cause why the ad-interim injunction should not be made absolute, and fixed the hearing on October 16, 1996. One Bharat V. Anjaria, Chemical Engineer and Consultant, Institute of Engineers (India), enlisted with I. D. B. I; State Bank of India. G. I. D. C. , Vapi, was appointed as Court Commissioner with a direction to prepare panchnama etc. in terms of prayer para 17 (C) of the application. It appears that against the said exparte order, the defendants preferred an appeal being Appeal From Order No. 491/96 in this Court. Along with the appeal, an application being Civil Application No. 8650 of 1996 for stay of the operation and implementation of the exparte order was filed. This Court (Coram : D. G. Karia. J) vide its order dated 10-10-1996 issued notice and made it returnable on 18- 10-1996 and also granted stay as prayed for D. G. Karia. J. after hearing both the parties on October 18,1996 disposed of the Appeal from Order by directing the learned trial Judge to hear application as expeditiously as possible and not later than November 1,1996 and continued the stay granted earlier till the disposal of the injunction application. Ex. 5.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge, in compliance with the order of this Court, after hearing the parties, vide his order dated Janu