VINAY KUMAR Vs. SURYA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and Mr J. J. Munir, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent and have also gone through the material placed on record.

(2.) The instant appeal is preferred by the defendant/appellant against the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4 Agra in Original Suit No. 1023 of 2012 whereby the application for temporary injunction (application 8-C) filed by the plaintiff/respondent was allowed by ordering the parties to maintain status quo.

(3.) Perusal of the record would disclose that a dispute arose between the partnership firm runs in the name and style of M/s Surya Industries in which the appellant/defendant herein has its share to the extent of 51 % and the plaintiff respondent has its share of 49 % for carrying out the business of manufacturing and trading of all Oil Engine parts etc. However, plaintiff/respondent is said to be Managing Partner of the said firm. It is alleged that a suit being O.S. No. 1023 of 2012 was filed by plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from interferring the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the property in suit. In the said suit, an application (8C) for temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff/respondent which is said to be contested by the defendant/appellant by filing objection to the same and further the defendant/appellant has also filed an application (36-C) for temporary injunction during the pendency of the said suit for restraining the plaintiff/respondent from interferring with the right of the defendant/appellant from carrying out its business. This application was also contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing objection before the trial court and the court below after considering the pleadings of the parties allowed the application for temporary injunction (application 8-C) filed by the plaintiff/respondent by ordering the parties to maintain status quo vide its order dated 15.7.2015. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.