CHHAIL BIHARI Vs. MAHESH CHAND JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Kumher, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 19.7.2013 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Mahesh Chand Jain, had filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner-defendant, Chhail Bihari. In the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff had claimed that the petitioner-defendant had rented out a shop to him. He was running a business of selling medicines. However, the petitioner was bent upon getting the respondent evicted from the shop without following the procedure established by law. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner be restrained from dispossessing him from the rented shop. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the averments made therein and raised certain objections. However, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 18.2.2012, the learned trial court granted interim order in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. It directed the petitioner not to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff from the shop. Meanwhile, the respondent-plaintiff filed two writ petitions before this Court, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17670/2012 and 1418/2013. In the first writ petition, he sought police protection for himself, and in the second writ petition, he sought relief that electric connection which was disconnected by the petitioner, should be restored. However, by orders dated 9.11.2012 and 11.2.2013, while disposing of the writ petitions, this Court granted liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to move the necessary application before the learned trial court. Since the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2013, he filed a special appeal before a Division Bench, namely D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/2013. By order dated 5.7.2013, the learned Division Bench directed the learned trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction itself. Consequently, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 19.7.2013, the learned trial court not only allowed the temporary injunction application, but also directed the petitioner to unlock the shop and to restore the electric connection. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 12.11.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal, and upheld the order dated 19.7.2013. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:-