Mandatory injunctions cannot be granted on interlocutory applications unless in exceptional circumstances to restore the status quo and not to establish a new state of things.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 26-4-1990 in favour of the plaintiff- respondent, the defendants-appellants have preferred-noted appeals.

( 2 ) THERE is a dispute between the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and the defendant-respondent No. 2 with regard to licence-Theka for collection of carcass, hides and bones of dead animals. The plaintiff-respondent had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs respondents are entitled to the Theka and the defendants-appellants have wrongly granted Theka to the defendant-respondent No. 2 in each appeal, therefore, the suits for permanent injunction against the defendants. An application for interim injunction was moved by the plaintiff respondent which has been granted by the impugned order after hearing the parties. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26-4-1990, the defendants-appellants have preferred the above noted appeals.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial Court has misappreciated the order of this Court dated 29-3-1990 in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 9639 of 1989 Pashu Shav Chhedan Evam Haddi Choora Audyogic Utpadan Co-operative Society Ltd. Kasiwala, Bijnor v. Zila Parishad, Bijnor. According to him the impugned order should be set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.

( 4 ) SECOND contention raised on behalf of the appellants is to the effect that the trial Court has wrongly observed that the appellants have violated the order of the Government as well as the dictum of law laid down by the highest Court in granting Theka to the defendant-respondent No. 2 in the above appeals.

( 5 ) THIRD contention raised on behalf of the appellants is to the effect that the trial Court has wrongly construed the order of the High Court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment of the High Court dated 29-3-1990 in Writ Petn. No. 9639 of 1989 was in favour of the appellants and the observation in the aforesaid judgment related to the year 1990-91 but the same has been wrongly appreciated by the trial Court.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant respondent No. 1 has submitted that the appeals are not maintaiable. It has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the defendant respondent No. 1 that the appellants are pleading the cause of the defendant-respondent No. 2, therefore, the appeals have no merit and should be dismissed.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. We are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court has misconstrued the order of this Court dated 29-3-1990. The relevant extract of the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is as below:"however, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that his application be considered in terms of the aforesaid circular and in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case Gulshan v. Zila Parishad reported in 1988 U. P. L. B. E. C. 82. ""we, therefore, accordingly direct that if such an application has already been moved by the petitioner before respondent No. 1, the same shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the guide-lines made by the Supreme Court in the above authority. It is further directed that if the petitioner is found qualified for the grant of licence sought for, and if the auction has not taken place so far, the application of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with the terms of the circular and observations made in the aforesaid authority. "

( 8 ) IT is noteworthy that the aforesaid order cannot help the submissions made on behalf of the appellants as the application for grant of licence with regard to the year 1990-91 had already been decided before the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants was rendered. In this vi