RAM NIWAS GUPTA Vs. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Sachindra Kumar (hereinafter the respondent) holds a stage carriage permit No. 604-A for the Atrauli-Amapur via Charra-Kasganj route. He plied Bus No. UPC 5375 against this permit. On or about 8th August, 1974 he entered into agreement with Ram Niwas (hereinafter the petitioner) whereby he agreed to transfer the vehicle to the petitioner and to let him ply the same against the respondent's permit. Apprehending breach of this agreement on respondent's part, the petitioner instituted O. S. No. 140 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Aligarh for perpetual injunction. The suit ended in compromise between the parties entered into on 17th Jan., 1976 the material terms of which were:-( i) That the Bus No. UPG 5375 with its Chassis No. 34205207, 17401, Engine No. 0717952, 1970 Model in question is and will remain the property of the plaintiff. (ii) That the plaintiff shall be entitled to ply the said Bus on the Permit No. 604-A on the route Atrauli-Amapur via Chharrah-Kasganj for a period of six years and the defendants will not interfere in the plaintiff's plying the said Bus for the said period. (iii) That the defendant No. 1 shall not for a period of six years from the date of this compromise ply or cause to be plied any other Bus of any other person, on permit No. 604-A nor he will get the name of any other person entered in Permit no. 604-A or in the Registration Certificate. (iv) That the defendant No. 1 will have no objection in allowing the plaintiff to ply any other Bus on Permit No. 604-A during the period of six years as mentioned in para No. 2 above. (v) That the plaintiff shall pay Rs. 200/-per month payable by 10th day of the succeeding month from the date of the compromise to Sri Sachindra Kumar, defendant No. 1, for a period of six years or till shorter time as the plaintiff plies his Bus on Permit No. 604-A and in case of default of payment for 3 consecutive months, the defendant No. 1 shall be at liberty to stop the plaintiff from plying the Bus on tine said permit In case the defendants or any of them, in any manner, prevent the plaintiff from plying his bus on Permit No. 604-A, the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 200/- per month to the defendant No. 1.

(3.) On the eve of the expiry of this agreement which was entered for a term of six years, the petitioner instituted another Original Suit No. 23 of 1982 for perpetual injunction in the Court of Munsif Havali, Aligarh on 16th Jan., 1982 asserting that on Oct. 11, 1981 the respondent tod agreed to extend the term by seven years for enhanced payment at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and that he had also advanced Rs. 5,000/-for which the petitioner executed receipt. An application for temporary injunction was also made. The trial Court granted ex parte interim injunction on 16th January, 1982 restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner in plying his bus against Permit No. 604-A. This injunction continued up to 28th Jan., 1982. On 29th Jan., 1982 the Regional Transport Officer, Agra at the respondent's instance replaced his Bus No. UPT 3972 against this permit. The ad interim injunction dated 16-1-1982 was confirmed by the trial Court on Feb. 3, 1982. The respondent filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1982 against this order which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 19-3-1982 and the injunction vacated finding that there was contravention of Section 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5220 of 1982 against this Order dated 19th March, 1982. The operation thereof was stayed on May 11, 1982 by this Court. Then the petitioner applied to the trial Court for ad interim mandatory injunction contending that the endorsement of the respondent's Bus no. U.P.T. 3972 on the said permit (in pursuance of the Order dated 19-3-1982) be deleted by the Regional Transport Officer and his own bus substituted. Learned Munsif granted interim mandatory injunction asked for on 13th Oct., 1982. In Misc. Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1982 filed by the respondent against this order, the same was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 11th NOV., 1982. Aggrieved the respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1983. Both the petitions were heard together.