https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112803 Where an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is challenged, the High Court should not ordinarily invoke Article 227 to reappreciate disputed facts or substitute supervisory review for the statutory remedies available. The Court noted that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) remained available, and that the controversy involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. The civil revision was therefore not maintainable for interference at that stage, and the injunction order was left undisturbed, with liberty reserved to pursue the appropriate remedies before the trial court and in appeal. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112803 Where an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is challenged, the High Court should not ordinarily invoke Article 227 to reappreciate disputed facts or substitute supervisory review for the statutory remedies available. The Court noted that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) remained available, and that the controversy involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. The civil revision was therefore not maintainable for interference at that stage, and the injunction order was left undisturbed, with liberty reserved to pursue the appropriate remedies before the trial court and in appeal. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112803