RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE NO. 3 & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels for the parties. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the respondent No. 2 -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking mandatory injunction requiring the petitioners -defendants to renew the license of the hotel/restaurant with immediate effect, and permanent injunction for restraining the petitioners -defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said hotel/restaurant, and also from causing any obstruction to the respondent -plaintiff in running the said hotel/restaurant at the disputed premises. It further appears that the respondent -plaintiff had initially filed one temporary injunction application seeking temporary injunction of similar nature as sought in the suit, and the same was resisted by the petitioners. The Trial Court vide the order dated 03/04/2012 had allowed the said temporary injunction application directing the petitioners -defendants to renew the license of the respondent -plaintiff for a period of one year on the respondent complying with the necessary formalities in view of the agreement dated 16.8.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred an appeal being No. 40 of 2012 before the Appellate Court, which was allowed by the Appellate Court vide the order dated 28th April, 2012, by setting aside the order dated 3rd April, 2012 passed by the Trial Court, further observing that the period of license of the respondent -plaintiff had come to an end on 3rd April, 2012. It further appears that the respondent -plaintiff again filed another temporary injunction application seeking relief inter -alia that the plaintiff may not be dispossessed from the disputed premises for a period of five years from 4/4/2011 i.e. upto 3/4/2016. The said application was also resisted by the petitioners by filing the reply. The Trial Court vide the order dated 7th May, 2012 dismissed the said application, against which the respondent -plaintiff had filed an appeal being No. 30 of 2012 before the Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be allowed on 28/5/2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) IT appears from the impugned order dated 28/5/2012 passed by the Appellate Court that the Appellate Court had directed the respondent -plaintiff to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, and directed the petitioners -defendants not to dispossess the respondent -plaintiff till the arbitration proceedings are decided by the Arbitrator or till the final disposal of the suit, whichever is earlier.