VENKATESH MESTHA Vs. RAMESH VENKAPPA MESTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this court assailing the order dated 22/3/2014 passed on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 241/13 and the judgment dated 14/7/2014 passed in M.A. No. 5/14.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 241/13. The suit in question is filed for judgment and decree of permanent injunction. In the pending suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking grant of temporary injunction. The defendant had filed objections to the said application. The court below after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the application. The plaintiff claiming to be aggrieved by the same, had preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in M.A. No. 5/14. Lower Appellate Court, after considering the rival contentions, has dismissed the appeal. Against the order and the judgment which are concurrent, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court.

(3.) HAVING taken note of the contentions as putforth, I have perused the order passed on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 241/13 as also the judgment passed in the appeal. A perusal of the same would indicate that the courts below, while taking note of the contentions putforth by the plaintiff, has taken into consideration the agreement dated 2/11/2006 which was relied upon by the defendant. Before going into the question as to whether the court below should have relied on such agreement, what is necessary to be noticed is that the courts below have also referred to the conduct of the petitioner while seeking an order of temporary injunction that no reference whatsoever was made with regard to that aspect of the matter and the fact of an agreement having been executed was brought to the fore only while the defendant filed written statement and the said document was relied upon. In my opinion this is a very relevant aspect which requires to be kept in view while considering the relief of temporary injunction which is a discretionary order.