ESCORTS FINANCE LTD Vs. SANDIP GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-11-2004 passed by the CivilJudge (S.D.), Pauri in O.S. No. 27 of 2004, Sandeep Goel and another v. Escorts Finance Ltd. and another, thereby allowing the application of the plaintiff for ad interim injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application for ad interim injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have purchased machines from the plaintiffs under hire-purchase agreement for Rs. 19,12,039/- on 4-6-2001. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants at the time of purchase of machines got his signatures obtained on so many papers and despite of the full payment made to the defendants, they have neither issued no-dues certificate nor refunded Rs. 78,000/- to the plaintiffs as bonus. The plaintiffs submitted that on 17-6-2004 some employees of the defendants came to Bharsar Engineering College, Pauri and illegally took possession over the machines. On 18-8-2004, the plaintiff No. 1 reported the matter to the Collector, Pauri Garhwal, who directed S.H.O. Pauri to take the machines back from the defendants and hand over the same to the plaintiff No. 1. In compliance of the order of District Magistrate, machines were given in the custody of the plaintiffs. Against the order of the Collector, the defendants filed a Writ Petition No. 935 of 2004 before this Court and vide order dated 4-10-2004 this Court has directed the Collector, Pauri Garhwal to take back the machines immediately from the plaintiffs. The Collector, Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 5-10-2004 directed restoration of possession of the machines to the defendants. As the Collector has already withdrawn his order dated 18-8-2004 vide order dated 5-10-2004, the writ petition had become infructuous and it was dismissed vide order dated 24-3-2005.

(3.) The main contention of the appellants is that no ad interim injunction can be granted in view of Order 39, Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further contention of the appellants is that the dispute may be referred to the arbitrator as per hire-purchase agreement. The efficacious remedy available to the plaintiffs is suit for specific performance and suit for perpetual injunction is barred by Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act. Another contention of the appellants is that as the property in dispute is a movable property, therefore, in view of Section 38(3)(b) and (c) of the Specific Relief Act, no permanent injunction can be granted to the plaintiff.