BHAWESH PRAVEEN CHANDRA VADHWANA Vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 104, read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, order dated 6.10.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 31/10 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur is under challenge, whereby, learned Civil Court rejected the application filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Appellant filed a civil suit initially in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur, which was later on transferred to Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur for trial. In the suit, the Plaintiff-Appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,43,61,178/-. The said claim was made on the ground that as per terms and conditions arrived at in between the Plaintiff and Defendant-Respondent, the Plaintiff-Appellant had done job work of preparing gitti at the crasher plant established by the Respondent company at the opposite side of petrol pump at village Girwa. As per the Plaintiffs case, for doing the said job work over the crashing plant, the Appellant had replaced the requisite implements, parts and spare parts as per the instructions of the Defendant-Respondent, upon which, the aforesaid sum was spent by him. For recovery of the said amount, the suit was filed.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff-Appellant is that the Defendant-Respondent is bent upon to sell the crasher plant to some other person with ill intention to defeat and render ineffective/infructuous the decree which may be passed in the suit. It is also stated in the plaint that the Defendant-Respondent no property within the jurisdiction of the Court except the aforesaid property, therefore, in the interest of justice, he prayed for temporary injunction by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Code of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151, Code of Code of Civil Procedure in the suit filed by him and made a prayer that Respondent-Defendant may be restrained from shifting the crasher plant elsewhere during the pendency of the suit. In the suit, it was also apprehended that Respondent-Defendant contacting parties for sale of the said crasher and slowly started shifting plant and other machinery from the site, therefore, according to the Plaintiff-Appellant, it was felt necessary to file application for temporary injunction.