Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 419 (UTT)

Allied Photographics India Ltd v. Umakant Shukla

2011-07-11

B.S.VERMA

body2011
Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for appellant and Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23-03-2009, passed by 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in O.S. No. 435 of 2008, M/S Allied Photographics Vs. Smt. Umakant Shukla and others, whereby the application moved by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction 6-C/2 was rejected. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the defendants/respondents for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that defendant No.3, UPSIDC was allotted plot C-2/1 situated in Selakui Dehradun, but due to financial hardship the defendant No.3 could not deposit the requisite amount and the property was purchased by Srichand Bajaj and Smt. Gayatri Devi and these persons sold the property to plaintiff/petitioner and the defendant No.3 UPSIDC also executed a lease dated 16-12-2006 in favour of plaintiff/petitioner. Since then the petitioner is owner and possession of the land. It is further alleged that the company passes resolutions in favour of its employees and other different persons for smooth working of company. In this context on 24.3.2004 resolution was made in favour of S.P. Agarwal and S.Narendra in respect of the land for its sale and purchase. Thereafter on 10-8-2004 and 30-11-2004 resolutions were made in favour of S. Narendra and defendant No.1 Umakant Shukla to deal with the legal proceedings in High Court in respect of the land in dispute. The further assertion of plaintiff/petitioner is that the land was purchased by S. Narendra for Company from Srichand Bajaj and Smt. Gayatri Devi. Doon Polymicrone is under liquidation and High Court vide order dated 14-9-2005 in company appeal has directed not to create third party interest in the property in suit. Plaintiff received contempt notice dated 25.1.2008 and only thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 sold the property to defendant No.2 on 16.1.2007. The sale deed dated 16.1.2007 is executed with malice and in this regard report was also lodged against defendants 1 and 2. Hence the suit for declaring the sale deed dated 16.1.2007 as null and void has been filed. The plaintiff also filed application 6-C/2 in the suit for temporary injunction in respect of property in suit. 4. The defendant No.1 did not file any objection. Hence the suit for declaring the sale deed dated 16.1.2007 as null and void has been filed. The plaintiff also filed application 6-C/2 in the suit for temporary injunction in respect of property in suit. 4. The defendant No.1 did not file any objection. However defendant No.2 filed W.S. and denied the averments of the plaint. He alleged that UPSIDC has executed lease deed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3, also cancelled the lease deed dated 16.12.2006 executed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant No.2 also alleged that he is in possession of land and the defendant No.1 is in possession of the land in the capacity of a lessee. The allegation of defendant No.2 is that defendant No.1 is the employee of the plaintiff company and he is representative of the company and the defendant No.2 has no concern with the differences between the plaintiff and its representative defendant No.1. 5. The defendant No.2 also filed objection against temporary injunction application and also annexed copy of Bank Drafts amounting to Rs. Ten lacs and Rs. Sixty lacs sent in favour of plaintiff/company. He also filed copy of resolution authorizing the defendant No.1 to sell the property in suit. 6. The learned trial court after hearing counsel for parties and considering the material on record, has recorded a finding that there is no prima facie case, and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The court also found that the principle of irreparable loss is also not in favour of plaintiff and accordingly rejected the temporary injunction application. 7. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff/petitioner has filed this appeal before this Court. 8. After having heard learned counsel for parties and going through the impugned order as well as the documents filed by defendant No.2 on record, prima facie, I do not find any manifest error in the impugned order, while the trial court has come to the conclusion that the principles for granting temporary injunction, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of plaintiff/petitioner. The trial court has considered the evidence in the form of resolution made in favour of defendant No.1 by which he was authorized to sell the property in suit, the photo copies of bank drafts drawn in favour of company as well as the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The trial court has considered the evidence in the form of resolution made in favour of defendant No.1 by which he was authorized to sell the property in suit, the photo copies of bank drafts drawn in favour of company as well as the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. In this way no case for granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/petitioner was made out and the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the trial court. I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, it is directed that the learned Civil Judge concerned shall expedite the disposal of the suit without further delay. Unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided and parties shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the suit.