C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the CMAs and the CRP arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) CMA 863 of 1998 arises out of IA No. 316 of 1998 in OS No. 168 of 1998 on the File of the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to issue interim injunction against the appellants, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, restraining them from permitting the 3rd respondent, i. e. , 3rd defendant, from functioning as dealer of Maruti Cars for the twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, pending the suit. CMA 982 of 1998 arises out of IA 428 of 1998 in IA 316 of 1998 in OS 168 of 1998 filed by the appellant (3rd defendant) under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to vacate the ex parte order of injunction granted on 24-2-1998 in 1a 316 of 1998 in OS 168 of 1998, which was later extended on 23-3-1998. CRP No. 1506 of 1998 arises out of IA 471 of 1998 in IA 316 of 1998 in OS 168 of 1998 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to direct respondents 2 and 3 i. e. , defendants 1 and 2 to produce all applications received by Maruti Udyog Limited in the year 1995, and the connected records.

( 3 ) 1st respondent in all the three proceedings is the plaintiff, appellant in CMA No. 863 of 1998 and revision petitioner in CRP 1506 of 1998 is the 3rd defendant and the appellants in CMA 982 of 1998 are defendants 1 and 2 in OS 168 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants hereinafter.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF, which is a private limited company, filed the suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to appoint it as dealer for Hyderabad-Secunderabad for dealing in the cars manufactured by the Mamti Udyog Limited, and filed IA 316 of 1998 in the said suit seeking injunction against defendants I and 2 restraining them from permitting the 3rd defendant from functioning as dealer of Maruti Cars for the twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The learned trial Judge issued an order of ex parte injunction as prayed for. Thereupon, the 3rd defendant filed IA No. 428 of 1998 to vacate the order of ex parte injunction passed against it. On behalf of defendants 1 and 2, a counter affidavit of the Secretary and Chief Legal Officer of Maruti Udyog Limited was filed in IA 316 of 1998. Both IA 316 of 1998 and IA 428 of 1998 were heard together. Exs. Al to All were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs. Bl to B7 were marked on behalf of defendants in the trial Court. The trial Judge by a common order, allowed 1a 316 of 1998 and dismissed IA 428 of 1998 and made the interim ex parte order of injunction passed earlier absolute. During the pendency of IA 316 of 1998 plaintiff filed IA 471 of 1998 under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to direct defendants 1 and 2 to produce all the applications received by Maruti Udyog Limited in the year 1995, and also the connected record showing the scrutiny of the said applications and to produce the entire file relating to the appointment of the 3rd defendant as Dealer. The said petition was allowed by the trial Court by the order dated 23-3-1998, which is the subject matter of CRP 1506 of 1998.

( 5 ) THE brief facts of the case are, during the month of June, 1995, 1st defendant invited applications for appointment of new Dealers for 20 Cities in various parts of the country, including the twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, for the sale of Maruti Cars. As per the said terms and conditions, if one wants to apply for more than one city (place) he has to fill up separate application forms for each city, accompanied by Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 50,000. 00 for each application. All valid applications would be short-listed, as per the criteria mentioned therein, and the short listed applications would be considered for sit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document