documents before the Appellate Court is not questioned in the present
Petition. Rather, Petitioners have taken a chance by questioning the
order of vacation of injunction/modification of injunction by not
questioning the aforesaid order whereby documents were permitted to
be produced, even though for the said cause he has drawn support
from the judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s Orange City
Mobile Collection vs. M/s City Collection & Ors reported in 2017 (3)
ALL MR 859. In view of the conduct of the Petitioners, they are
disentitled to raise such a plea as they have acquiescenced themselves
by producing documents which they have sought to produce before
the Appellate Court and have also not questioned the order of the
Appellate Court, permitting Respondents/Defendants to produce the
documents. As far as contention as regards justifiability of the view
expressed by the Trial Court while passing the order granting
injunction is concerned, it appears that, as an Appellate Court, it is
duty bound to re-appreciate the evidence which is permissible in law.
The Appellate Court was sensitive to the independent holdings of each
of the parties to the suit, jointness of the family and construction to be
carried on by the Respondents at their costs and peril. Since the relief
of injunction claimed is an equitable relief and the Court weighed
