such apprehension as the opinion rendered by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order can, at best, be construed to be an opinion to justify the ultimate conclusion that interim relief cannot be granted. The observations can never be construed to be a finding which will bind the Court when the main petition is taken up for disposal. In fact, the suit Court while granting an interim order on February 23, 2021 had made it clear that the findings in respect of the “pledge” as claimed by the plaintiff therein was only prima facie for the purpose of considering grant of order of injunction. This observation stems out of the settled legal principle that any observation made by a Court while deciding an interlocutory application can have no impact on the order or judgment that may be passed after full-fledged trial or adjudication. By applying the said principles, we can safely observe that whatever observations which have been made by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order cannot be construed to be a finding against the appellant so as to, in any manner, impinge upon their rights which they are to canvas before the learned Single Bench in the main petition. This observation, in our view, would sufficiently safeguard the interest of the appellant and the appellant would be free to canvas all issues when the final adjudication takes place. Equally so, the respondents before us also cannot take advantage of the observation/findings rendered by the learned Single Bench while declining to grant interim relief in favour of the appellant, because those are all observations which, in the opinion of the learned Single Bench, were required to justify the ultimate conclusion while denying interim relief. We have also noted that the
