MANU MITTAL Vs. SOM DUTT MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Additional District Judge, Rampur issuing temporary injunction against the appellant and defendant-respondent Smt. Swarna Mittal restraining them from interfering in the working of the petrol-pump by the plaintiff Som Dutt Mittal. They were further directed to remove the lock put on the petrol-pump and its other structures within two days failing which the plaintiff-respondent was given a right to open the lock himself. The plaintiff- respondent was, however, directed to furnish the accounts of income and expenditure of the petrol-pump every month and shall also give an undertaking that in case the business is found to be a partnership business then he will hand over the share of profits of the pump to the appellant and defendant-respondent Smt. Swarna Mittal.

(2.) THE plaintiff had alleged that he is the sole proprietor of the firm. He has obtained a licence of sale of petrol in 1966 from Esso Standard Eastern Incorporated Company, in the name and style of Som Dutt Subhash Chandra. In 1971, the aforesaid firm was changed to Naini Service Station. THE name of Esso Company has changed to Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Limited. It was urged that the plaintiff is continuing the sole business. He has obtained the necessary licence under the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Speed Diesel Oil Storage and Distribution Order, 1981 and also under the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. In 1986, Brahma Dutt Mittal, father of the appellant, had started interfering in the business of the plaintiff. Consequently, Som Dutt Mittal had filed Suit No. 47 of 1986 in which an injunction order was issued in favour of the plaintiff on 7-5-1986. Disobeying this order of injunction, Brahma Dutt Mittal had put lock on the petrol-pump. When a complaint was made, the application of the plaintiff was accepted and the lock was got open on 2-9-1988. Brahma Dutt Mittal had moved two more petitions for appointing receiver of the property. THEse were rejected by the court. When Brahma Dutt Mittal was unsuccessful in his attempt, he instigated the appellant. THE appellant had put lock on the petrol-pump in the night of 12th/13th March, 1989. It was contended that the defendants have no concern in the property in question. THE plaintiff also alleged that his diesel and petrol are lying in the tanks. THEse are evaporating and the plaintiff is suffering irreparable loss. Hence a prayer was made to get the locks opened and restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) AT the very stage of admission, affidavits had been exchanged with relevant annexures. Hence with the consent of the parties, we are disposing of this appeal at the admission stage.