R T GUPTA INDUSTRIES Vs. KWALITY SPINNER LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order dt. March 20, 1987, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in R.S.A. No. 489 of 1987, R.T. Gupta Industries (defendant in the suit giving rise to the second appeal) has filed the present letters patent appeal under Cl.X of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court.

(2.) M/s. Kwality Spinners through its partner Bhagwan Dass filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,73,300/- against R.T. Gupta Industries (hereinafter described as defendant). During the pendency of the suit, Bhagwan Dass, a partner of the plaintiff-firm, who has been arrayed as plaintiff 2 obtained an order from the trial Court restraining the defendant from withdrawing a sum of Rs. 1,73,300/- from the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (Department of Supplies), New Delhi. That order continued to be operative till the suit was eventually dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs questioned the correctness of the decree passed by the trial Court by filing a first appeal which too was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs then filed Regular Second Appeal No. 489 of I987 before this court and also moved an application praying that the defendant respondents be restrained from withdrawing the amount of Rs. 1,73,300/- from the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (Department of Supplies), New Delhi, during the pendency of the second appeal. While issuing notice of motion, the Court granted ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 1,73,300/- from the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (Department of Supplies), New Delhi.

(3.) The respondents appeared and contested the motion as also the prayer for injunction. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for admission of the said appeal had been made out. Accordingly, he admitted the appeal for detailed consideration. So far as the prayer for the interim relief was concerned, learned Judge vide his order dt. Mar. 20, 1987, directed that the injunction which had already been issued by the Court restraining the defendant from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 1,73,300/- from the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (Department of Supplies), New Delhi, was to continue to operate till the decision of the appeal. He, however, gave an option to the defendant to have the injunction order vacated by furnishing bank guarantee for the refund of the sum of Rs. 1,73,300/-. Aggrieved the defendant filed the present letters patent appeal under CI. X of the Letters Patent and questioned the validity of the order restraining him from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 1.73,300/-.