1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the refusal of an interlocutory injunction by the High Court in this case does not call for interference.

3. But Shri K. Parasaran is right in pointing out that in either case whether the interlocutory injunction is granted or refused, it should not be unconditional and there should be on an undertaking by the party in whose favour the discretion is exercised for damages. This is the correct position. The words of Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid v.Ethicon Ltd. 1975 (1) ALLER 504 in this behalf are worth recalling:

"My Lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiffs legal right is made on contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it, or both, is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. It was to mitigate the risk of the film by virtue of Section 14(1)(c) of the. The composer of a lyric or a musical wo injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that the practice arose of granting him relief by way of interlocutory injunction; but since the middle of the 19th century this has been made subject to his undertaking to pay damages to the defendant for any loss sustained by reason of the injunction if it should be held at the trial that the plaintiff had not been entitled to restrain the defendant from doing what he was threatening to do...."

"It is no part of the courts function at this stage of the litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit as to facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed argument and mature considerations. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial. One of the reasons for the introduction of the practice of requiring an undertaking as to damages on the grant of an interlocutory injunction was that it aided the court in doing that which was its great object, viz. abstaining from expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case until the hearing (Wakefield v. Duke of .."

".....If damages is the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiffs claim appeared to be at that stage...." *

4. While we decline to interfere with the order of the High Court, we leave it open to the petitioner to move the trial court to impose such conditions, as may be found appropriate, including if necessary, the keeping of accounts and an undertaking to pay damages in the event of the petitioner succeding ultimately in the action.

With these observations the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. It is appropriate that the trial court should expedite the trial itself.