demonstrate, albeit at a prima facie level, that the apprehension was reasonable and credible. Here, a mere averment in the plaint would not do. And, the assumption that the averments in the plaint are correct would also not be available. Where the issue of jurisdiction is to be decided at the trial, the standard of proof would be even higher. Therefore, while for the purposes of an examination under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code, the court may ‘conclude’ that it has territorial jurisdiction, this would not come in the way of the defendant in raising a question as to territorial jurisdiction, both, when the issue of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code is being considered and when an issue as to territorial jurisdiction is being decided in the trial of the suit. In other words, while a plaintiff may succeed in demonstrating, for the purposes of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code that this court has territorial jurisdiction and that the plaint ought not to be returned, he may fail in obtaining an order of interim injunction on the ground that the plaintiff's case is itself shaky because the issue of territorial jurisdiction is highly debatable and prima facie not tenable. Therefore, the decision of the court in rejecting the objection of the defendant and in refusing the defendant's prayer for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code, would not come in the way of the defendant raising the question of territorial jurisdiction, both as an objection to the grant of an interim injunction as also at the time of decision of the issue of territorial jurisdiction, if framed, at the trial of the suit.”
