KAMLESH TRADING COMPANY Vs. AASU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff) against the order dtd. 10/12/2020 passed by Addl. District Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 06/2020, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') has been allowed and the order dtd. 29/10/2020 passed by Civil Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (for short, 'the Trial Court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 22/2020 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, has been set-aside.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court vide its order dtd. 29/10/2020 granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed a Civil Misc. Appeal. The Appellate Court vide its order dtd. 10/12/2020 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dtd. 29/10/2020 passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff was appointed as authorized and exclusive Distributor of Varun Beverage Ltd. (for short, 'the Company') for buying and selling / promoting the products of Pepsi Brand in Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar and distribution rights of M/s. Zuber Cold Drinks, Proprietor of which was Ashu Khan were terminated w.e.f. September, 2018. Accordingly, on 4/11/2019, a Distributorship Agreement was entered into between the Company and the plaintiff and areas in Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar were prescribed, where only the plaintiff could sell the products of the Company. He further submits that the trial court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but the appellate court set-aside the same in an arbitrary and illegal manner. He further submits that the scope to interfere in the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court is very limited. The appellate court cannot interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial court, unless the order passed by the trial court is arbitrary, perverse or is not based on sound legal principles. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Versus Sunder Bros. Delhi reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 249