Judgment 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.8.2000, passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Madhubani in T.S. No. 71 of 2000 (M/s Radha Krishna Exports Private Limited vs. Pandaul Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.) whereby the plaintiffs application under Order 38, Rules 1 and 2 has been rejected on the ground that in so far as the subject matter of this application is concerned, the plaintiff can easily be compensated in terms of money although he has found in favour of the plaintiff on all other counts. 2. Notices were issued by this court to the defendants- respondents, who have refused to appear inspite of valid service of notice. The matter has, therefore, been taken up for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. and being finally disposed of. 3. According to the plaint, the plaintiff is a private limited company, having its registered office at Calcutta and deals in export of clothes. The defendant no. 1 is a co-operative society. The other defendants are the office bearers and its activities are centred at Pandaul, District Madhubani. The plaintiff used to handover bales of raw cotton to the defendants to be converted into yam on piece-rated basis. This was a continuing affair and as on the date of the plaint, 89.537 kgs. of cotton, i.e. 351 bales of cotton, of the plaintiff was in possession of the defendants to be converted into yarn and the plaintiff had also handed over a sum of Rs. 31,45,754.45 p to the defendants by way of advance towards the cost of conversion. The defendants have failed to convert the said cotton into yarn, which is lying in the godown of the defendants. Hence the suit for the following reliefs : (a) The court be pleaded to grant a decree for Rs. 1,50,34,224.25 (Rupees one crore fifty lakh, thirty four thousand two hundred twenty four and paise twenty five only), the amount payable by the defendants to plaintiff with interest pendente lite as accounted in Schedule 4 of the plaint. (b) The court be pleased to grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from lifting the cotton from the mill premises of the defendants. (c) The court be pleased to grant such other relief for which the plaintiff may be found entitled. (b) The court be pleased to grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from lifting the cotton from the mill premises of the defendants. (c) The court be pleased to grant such other relief for which the plaintiff may be found entitled. (d) The court be pleased to grant the cost of the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC before the learned Subordinate Judge, lst Court, Madhubani, for an appropriate direction to the defendants to re-deliver the aforesaid 351 bales of cotton in the form it was handed ever to the defendants. The defendants were noticed but refused to appear before the trial court also. After hearing the matter, the trial court has rejected the injunction application holding that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case to go to trial and the balance of conveyance (s/c-convenience ?) lies in favour of the plaintiff, inter alla, for the reason that the defendants have failed to take responsibility to preserve the cotton in the condition it is stored till the disposal of the suit. However, the trial court has held that the plaintiff can easily be compensated in terms of money. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Has assailed the validity of third finding on diverse counts. 6. Having gone through the records and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, I am of the view that the learned trial court has erred in concluding that the plaintiff can conveniently be compensated in terms of money. The moment the trial court has held that the defendants had failed to take responsibility to preserve the cotton in the, manner it has been delivered, the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff can conveniently be compensated in terms of money. The trial court has failed to take into account the position as to from which source the plaintiff would be compensated in the event the suit is decreed. Further more, having held that the plaintiff has prima facie case to go to trial, it follows, as a matter of corollary that the plaintiff then delivered 341 bales of cotton weighing 89,537 kgs. It has also failed to realise the plaintiffs reputation or compulsions in the commercial world. Further more, having held that the plaintiff has prima facie case to go to trial, it follows, as a matter of corollary that the plaintiff then delivered 341 bales of cotton weighing 89,537 kgs. It has also failed to realise the plaintiffs reputation or compulsions in the commercial world. It might have, in its turn, entered into an agreement with third party to convert yarn into cloth, and/or onward transaction Such loss of goodwill or break in commercial transaction will not be compensated in terms of money. The trial court has therefore, erred in holding that the plaintiff can conveniently be compensated in terms of money. 7. The trial court should also have reminded itself that breach of promise must always be looked down upon, and any step to impede production must be discouraged. The trial court has, in fact, found for the limited purpose of the present application that the defendants have gone dishonest. 8. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 17.8.2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge, lst Court, Madhubani, is hereby set aside. The trial court is hereby directed to ensure the delivery of the aforesaid 351 bales of cotton weighing 89,537 kgs within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.