USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsels appearing for the opposite party Nos.

(2.) , 3 and 4. 2. At this stage it is relevant to record that opposite party No. 2. was erstwhile dealer inducted in the tenanted premises through the company and the opposite party No. 4 is his son. Opposite party No. 3 is the landlord.

(3.) IT appears that the premises were handed over to the landlord -opposite party No. 3 directly. This led to institution of suit Title Suit No. 136/2000, by the petitioner to restrain the dealer from handing over possession to the landlord directly. The prayer for injunction was also refused on 15.1.2000. It is not in controversy that no appeal was preferred against this order. The contention is that possession having been handed over before the order refusing injunction was passed there was no occasion to prefer any appeal.