judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that in the interests of justice, it is essential to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set things right. The contention raised by the plaintiff (2nd respondent) that if the interim injunction is vacated, the suit would become infructuous and therefore no interference should be made, is unsustainable. It is not the function of the court to keep in tact the orders which are liable to be vacated, only for the purpose of avoiding the suit becoming infructuous. If no injunction should be granted, nevertheless it was erroneously granted, the court is bound to vacate the same, unmindful of the consequences. If the suit becomes infructuous as a consequence of vacating the interim injunction, that event would take place. It cannot be attributed as the error committed by the court. Instances are galore where unmerited suits would be filed by litigants and they may become successful in getting an interim injunction. By the continuance of the interim injunction, the object sought to be achieved would, to a great extent, achieved by the plaintiff. The suit may be taken up for trial after a few years. By that time, the defendants would be put to irreparable injury and great hardship and they would not be able to regain the position which they occupied before the suit, even if the suit is
