BAPULAL Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has come up in appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 20-12-2002, passed by learned District Judge, Mandsour in c. S. No. 5-A of 2002, whereby his application made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected biparte by the learned Trial Judge. In other words, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the injunction application made by the plaintiff praying temporary injunction as contemplated under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC holding that no prima facie case is made out on facts. It is this order, which is impugned in this appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) HEARD Shri P. K Saxena, learned Senior Counsel with Shri rawka, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the appeal and hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is called for. As a consequence, the appeal must merit dismissal in limine.