RAJNEESH SINGH BAHRTARI Vs. SURYA PAL BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Uttarkashi in Original Suit No. 03 of 2010 "Shri. Rajneesh Singh Bhatrari v. Shri Surya Pal Singh Bhandari and Ors." in which the learned District Judge observed that prima-facie no case is made out for ex-parte injunction and fixed 03.03.2010 for objection and disposal of interim injunction application.

(2.) Briefly stated that the Plaintiff/Appellant instituted a suit bearing O.S. No. 3 of 2010 "Shri Rajneesh Singh Bhartari v. Shri Surya Pal Singh Bhandari and Ors." against the Defendant/Respondents for a decree of injunction not to interfere in the business of the Plaintiff under the name and style of M/s. Shivam Industries nor carry out any obstruction in the work of the stone crusher. In his plaint, the Plaintiff/Appellant came up with the case that in the year 2003, at the request and assurance of Respondent No. 1, the Plaintiff, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 entered into a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Shivam Industries to establish stone crusher at village Ponti, Tehsil Barkot, District Uttarkashi. After completing all the necessary formalities for the same and to avoid any dispute, a written deed of partnership was duly executed on 18.06.2007 between the partners in the presence of the witnesses so that finances could be arranged for the same. Thereafter, the Industries Directorate, under the policy of the State Government, permitted for the establishment of the stone crushing industry on completing all the requisite norms. The Plaintiff and his business partners i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 and 4, in order to expand the business and fulfill the necessary government obligations, applied for a loan of Rs. 22 lacs for the effective working of the industry and the same was duly sanctioned and amount was released by the State Bank of India, Dehradun for the purchase of necessary machinery. It is further stated in the plaint that the stone crusher was duly installed and same came into action after obtaining requisite no objection certificate. At the request of Defendant No. 4, the Plaintiff acquired his entire liabilities as well as share, profit and loss in the said business vide declaration dated 24.11.2008. Therefore, under the changed circumstances a registered partnership agreement was executed and the same was registered. The profit and loss shares of the partners were in the ratio of 60:40 wherein the Plaintiff had major share. It is stated that the Defendant No. 1 informed the Plaintiff that the business is under loss, therefore the Plaintiff moved an application before the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi regarding illegal activities of the Defendants in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Uttarkashi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who after enquiry made an observation that the Defendant No. 1 had no interest in the said industry. During the said enquiry, the Defendant No. 1 informed that he had created a new firm under the name and style of M/s. Shivam Industries/Stone Crusher, alongwith his associates and the Defendant No. 1 had no interest in the firm of the Plaintiff. Alongwith the suit, the Plaintiff moved an application (paper No. 4c-2) for grant of interim injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering in the business of the Plaintiff under the name of M/s. Shivam Industries and not to carry out any obstruction in the work of the said stone crusher other than due process of law during the pendency of the suit. The learned District Judge in his order dated 08.02.2010 observed that prima facie no case is made out and fixed 03.03.2010 for objection and disposal of interim injunction application. Aggrieved with the order dated 08.02.2010, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) The Defendant/Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed a counter affidavit mentioning therein that the appeal against the order dated 08.02.2010 is not maintainable. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that vide impugned order, the learned District Judge merely refused to give ex-parte injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff but he did not reject the interim injunction application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and fixed the case for objection and disposal of interim injunction application. The interim relief application of the Plaintiff is still pending disposal before the Court below.