MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. ADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the orders dated May 29, 1997 and June 16, 1997 passed by an Additional District Judge whereby he directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the hoardings put up by the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `respondent' in order to facilitate the reference).

(2.) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `appellant' for the sake of convenience), their servants and agents from removing, defacing and damaging the advertisements put up by the respondent on the sit mentioned in Annexure P-1 annexed with the plaint. The respondent alongwith the said suit moved a application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' for short) for an ad interim injunction (vide Annexure P-1) whereupon the learned lower Court issued notices returnable by June 6, 1997 and in the meanwhile, directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the hoardings put up by the respondent. Subsequently, aggrieved with the said order the appellant herein moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for appointment of a local Commissioner for inspection of the advertisement sites as referred to in Annexure P-1. The reason for the presentation of the said application was that on inspection by the Field Inspector and the Commercial Officer of the appellant it transpired that some of the advertisement hoardings mentioned in Annexure P-1 were not in existence at all. Hence it became necessary to have the sites inspected by a local Commissioner to verify the fact as to whether the said advertisement hoardings referred to in Annexure P-1 were in existence or not at the relevant time. The said application was dismissed by the learned lower Court vide the impugned order dated June 16, 1997. The learned lower Court was of the view that there was no need for the appointment of a local Commissioner. The learned Additional District Judge again reiterated his earlier order with regard to the maintenance of the status quo by both the parties. It was in the above circumstances that the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Madhu Tewatia has vehemently contended before this Court that the learned lower Court while passing the impugned order did not take into consideration the relevant points which are required to be looked into before passing an ex parte injunction order. According to her, as per the averments in the plaint the respondent have neither shown a prima facie case in their favour nor the balance of convenience. Furthermore, they were not likely to suffer any irreparable loss or injury in case the injunction was not granted. Hence the impugned order is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Thus the same is liable to be vacated by this Court.