(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Madras High Court Letters Pattent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.07.2021 dismissing the Original Application in O.A.No.895 of 2019 in C.S.No.584 of 2019 filed by the appellant.)

M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. Challenging the order passed in O.A.No.895 of 2019 in C.S.No.584 of 2019, the plaintiff has filed the above appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.584 of 2019 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from in any manner interacting with, servicing, entering into contract, communicating, receiving payments and specifically from doing business with the plaintiff's customers/clients and in particular, the plaintiff's clients enumerated in the schedule and for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as damages/compensation for wilful breach of confidence and loss caused to them. The plaintiff has also prayed for interest on the said sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff took out an application in O.A.No.895 of 2019 seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from in any manner interacting with, servicing, entering into contract, communicating, receiving payments and specifically from doing business with the plaintiff's customers/clients and in particular, the plaintiff's clients enumerated in the schedule.

3. From the above, it is clear that the prayer sought for in the Original Application is identical to the 1st prayer sought for in the main suit. The respondents 1 & 2 filed their counter and opposed the application. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application finding that the plaintiff has not produced any material to establish their case for the grant of interim injunction. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of pleadings and material in relation to the business dealing with the named Companies, the Court cannot continue the interim injunction. Challenging this order, the plaintiff has filed the above Original Side Appeal.

4. Heard Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

5. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be disputed that the prayer sought for in the injunction application is identical to the prayer sought for in main suit in C.S.No.584 of 2019. It is also clear that the plaintiff has not produced a single document to establish their case for the grant of interim injunction. That apart, there was no oral and documentary evidence to establish the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Judges summons. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence produced before the learned Single Judge in the Original Application, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the application.

6. Since the prayer sought for in the Original Application in O.A.No.895 of 2019 and the suit in C.S.No.584 of 2019 are identical, the appellant can very well establish the case by adducing oral and documentary evidences in the main suit. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Original Side Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed.

However, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the disposal of the main suit in C.S.No.584 of 2019. We also request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the suit, on merits and in accordance with law, independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this Appeal or in the Original Application. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.