https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465892 Temporary injunction restraining execution of an ex parte decree was refused because the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of fraud or illegality. The court treated interim restraint as a discretionary equitable remedy and held that a litigant who knew of the earlier decree, had pursued restoration proceedings unsuccessfully, and lacked diligence could not claim such relief. Although the view that an order under Order 21, Rule 29 was not appealable was not accepted, that point was not decisive. On the facts, no sufficient basis existed for interference with the refusal of injunction. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:58:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465892 Temporary injunction restraining execution of an ex parte decree was refused because the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of fraud or illegality. The court treated interim restraint as a discretionary equitable remedy and held that a litigant who knew of the earlier decree, had pursued restoration proceedings unsuccessfully, and lacked diligence could not claim such relief. Although the view that an order under Order 21, Rule 29 was not appealable was not accepted, that point was not decisive. On the facts, no sufficient basis existed for interference with the refusal of injunction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465892