Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 –Temporary Injunction – Both appellants and respondents weremanufacturers and sellers of Thermo-Mechanically treated bars(TMT bars) – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit before Single Judgeof High Court claiming infringement of their registered trade mark‘SHYAM’ and its variants and also for passing off by the appellants-defendants – Along with the suit, an application for temporaryinjunction came to be filed – The application claimed an order ofinjunction restraining appellants-defendants from infringingrespondent-plaintiff’s trade mark ‘SHYAM’ – The Single Judge madea prima facie observation that ‘SHYAM’ being a part of the businessname of appellants-defendants, no injunction should be passed torestrain the appellants-defendants from using the said word ‘SHYAM’on their packaging; and directed the matter to be listed after threeweeks – Respondent-plaintiff filed intra-court appeal – DivisionBench of High Court granted injunction restraining the appellantsfrom using the mark ‘SHYAM’ till disposal of the suit – ‘Tenabilityof appeal’ against the order of Single Judge – Correctness of the‘approach of the Division Bench’– Held: Each and every orderpassed by trial judge could not be construed to be “judgment” – Tobe construed as a “judgment”, order must have the traits andtrapping of finality and such order must affect vital and valuablerights of the parties – Though the order of the Single Judge mighthave caused some inconvenience and prejudice to the respondent,the same could not be treated as ‘judgment’ – The order of SingleJudge did not contain traits and trappings of finality – The saidorder cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ and the appeal to theDivision Bench was not tenable – Approach of the Division Benchwas totally contrary to the various principles of law – If the appellatecourt itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trialcourt there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of the courts– Division Bench failed to observe as how the discretion exercisedby the Single Judge was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously orperversely – There was no discussion as to how a prima facie casewas made out by the respondent – Tests of ‘balance of convenience’and ‘irreparable injury’ were not even mentioned – Approach ofDivision Bench of High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalledfor.Appeal – Letters Patent appeal – Term ‘judgment’ used inLetters Patent – Held: Though the term ‘judgment’ used in LettersPatent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to theterm ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much widerand more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, eachand every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed tobe a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to the number oforders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent – Theword ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broaderand not in a narrower sense – Where an order vitally affects avaluable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to beappealable to a larger Bench.Injunction – Temporary Injunction – Grant of – Three testsof prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.Judiciary – Hierarchy of courts – Role of appellate court –Held: An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court arerecorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by thetrial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof withinthe limited area available – If the appellate court itself decides thematters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be nonecessity to have the hierarchy of courts.