Abdoolcader J:

There are before me cross applications by the plaintiffs and the defendant for interlocutory injunctions in a matter in which such applications would seem to be the order of the day, as, quite apart from these two applications, there have been two other applications, in one of which an injunction was granted but subsequently discharged and in the other an injunction was granted subsequent to and pending the hearing of the present two applications. I would have thought, like Cozens-Hardy MR in W Edge & Sons Lingted v. Niccolls Ltd. [1911] 1 Ch. 1, 9 that in the circumstances the Court ought to have been asked to grant not interlocutory injunctions but a speedy trial but unfortunately Counsel on both sides had frankly to admit when I raised this that the action is not yet ready for trial. In any event, the cross applications, adjourned for hearing on several occasions, were ultimately set down and argued before me and it now becomes my duty to deal with them. Although the two applications in form purport to seek perpetual injunctions they are clearly intended to be no more than applications for interlocutory orders pending the trial of this action.

The plaintiffs filed this action on 11 March 1974, for specific performance of a Permit to Mine dated 6 March 1973, whereby they were permitted by the defendant to work the mining land known as Lot 34222 in the Mukim of Blanja in the District of Kinta, Perak, held under Mining Certificate No. 5083 in respect of which the defendant is sub-sub-lessee under a sub-sub-lease of a sublease. Briefly the defendant contracted to allow the plaintiffs to work the land for a period of one year and agreed to renew the Permit yearly for the term of the Mining Certificate and the renewals thereof until the land is completely worked out. The defendant refused to renew the Permit on its expiry after the first year and hence these proceedings. The plaintiffs also claim an injunction to restrain the defendant from entering on the land or interfering with them, an order for the Senior Inspector of Mines to renew the hydraulic licence in their name and, alternatively, damages for breach of contract. The defendant has filed an amended defence raising several defences and alleging breaches on the part of the plaintiffs entitling the defendant to refuse to renew the Permit to Mine. The defendant has further counterclaimed for a declaration that the Permit is void and of no effect and that it be cancelled, a mandatory order commanding the plaintiffs to cease mining operations and remove their machinery and properties from and vacate the land, an injunction prohibiting the plaintiffs from entering on or occupying the land or carrying on mining operations thereon and interfering with the defendant in her mining operations, an order prohibiting the Senior Inspector of Mines from issuing any hydraulic licence to the plaintiffs and directing him to issue one to the defendant as from 6 March 1974, and general and special damages.

The aftermath of the institution of these proceedings has been a chequered history of bilateral exuberance of interlocutory applications and copious affidavits in support and in reply.

The plaintiffs in the first instance filed an application inter parties on 11 March 1974, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from entering on to the land or interfering with their mining operations and for an order to the Senior Inspector of Mines to renew the hydraulic licence in their name. On 21 March 1974, the defendant filed a Motion for an order directing the plaintiffs to forthwith dismantle and remove all their mining machinery buildings and properties from the land in question, an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from entering occupying or carrying on mining operations thereon and interfering with mining operations by her, an order prohibiting the Senior Inspector of Mines from issuing any hydraulic licence to the plaintiffs and directing him to issue one to