Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)
Defendant/petitioner, herein, has preferred present petition assailing the orders dated 3.5.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nainital in Civil Revision No. 58 of 2010 as well as the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nainital.
Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff/respondent, herein, preferred O.S No. 30 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nainital. Suit is filed by the Manu Maharani Enterprizes through Sri. Anirudh Singh Katoch claiming himself as Managing Director and one of the shareholders of the plaintiff company seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/petitioner, herein, restraining the defendant/petitioner, herein, in making any interference in the working of the plaintiff/respondent, herein, on the travel desk situated in the lobby of Hotel Manu Maharani, Nainital.
As per the plaint allegations initially Smt. Lata Chauhan, Smt. Hemlata Singh, Saroj Jamwal and Smt. Pushpa Katoch were shareholders of the defendant Hotel Co.; However, letter on except Smt. Pushpa Katoch [mother of Sri. Anirudh Singh Katoch], other shareholders transferred their respective shares; After 25.2.2000 Smt. Pushpa Katoch, Sri. Rakesh Jain, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Sri. Ravindra Kumar, Sri. Atul Jain and two nominated directors, viz., Sri. Akhil Swami and Sri. K.P Saxena are Directors of defendant Hotel Co. Earlier Directors of the Hotel Co. were pleased to permit the plaintiff to run and operate Travel Desk in the Hotel lobby; Plaintiff Co. is thus entitled to run and operate Travel Desk in the Hotel till plaintiff Co. wants and willing to run. Although entire property belongs to Dan Singh Bisht Trust, however, share holders of the Hotel Co. are legally entitled and authorized to run Manu Maharani Hotel in the property; Defendant and its shareholders are threatening the plaintiff to remove the Travel Desk and not to allow the plaintiff to run and operate Travel Desk, therefore suit. In a suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also moved seeking ad interim injunction.
Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 24.5.2000, was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 41 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent, herein, in the court of Civil Judge, Nainital under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC saying that defendant/petitioner, herein, had disconnected the connection of telephone no. 39453, which was working on the travel desk, in violation of the status quo order dated 24.5.2000 In the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, an application was moved by the plaintiff/respondent, herein under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC requesting the court to appoint advocate commissioner to visit and inspect the spot.
Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 6.10.2010, was pleased to appoint Sri. Rajendra Lohani, Advocate as advocate commissioner to visit and inspect the spot. Order dated 6.10.2010 was challenged by the defendant/petitioner, herein, before the revisional court, however, revision was dismissed by the revisional court, vide order dated 3.5.2012 Feeling aggrieved, defendant/petitioner, herein, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, herein, and Mr. B.S Adhikari, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, herein.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submitted that till date application seeking ad interim injunction has not been decided by the Trial Court. Further contended that in the civil suit, the questions which require adjudication are as to whether plaintiff co. was ever authorized to run and operate the Travel Desk by the Defendant (Hotel) and as to whether Travel Desk was being run and operated by the plaintiff co. and as to whether alleged license (oral authorisation) to run and operate the Travel Desk stood terminated (revoked) the moment defendant asked the plaintiff not to run the Travel Desk and as to whether plaintiff is entitled for the injunction against the Hotel Co. (owner of the Hotel).
I have myself examined the contents of the plaint. I find force in the statements of the learned counsel for the parties.
In my considered opinion, the object of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is not to punish guilty, rather the purpose of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is to enforce the interim order. Surprisingly, ad interim injunction application is pending disposal for last more than 14 years and has not been disposed of as yet and the parties are approaching Court on the every small issues i.e on the appointment of advocate commissioner.
Advocate Commissioner seems to have been appointed to find out as to whether there is any Travel Desk in the Hotel lobby. In my considered opinion, even if it is presumed that there is Travel Desk in the Hotel lobby, court has to decide as to whether plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as sought. Therefore, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is totally uncalled for and unjustified.
Therefore, present petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court to decide the ad interim injunction application itself within thirty days from the first date fixed before the Trial Court. Trial Court is further directed to explore every possibility to decide the suit at its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within six months thereafter.
Parties shall remain present before the Trial Court on 22.5.2014 for further orders.