JUDGEMENT:- This appeal is preferred by the original Plaintiff M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Pvt. Ltd., Company, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) rejecting its application for ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. Code.

2. A few relevant facts are these: The plot in question, on which the cinema-theatre runs under the name and style 'Shri Talkies' exists belongs to the respondent (defendant). He had leased out the open plot on 28-2-1945 to one Chunnilal Desai for a period of twenty years. In the year 1962, respondent Durgadas came to know that his tenant Chunnilal had inducted the present appellant. He, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1964 against his lessee Chunnilal for eviction and mesne profits in which he also impleaded the present appellant. The trial Court had partly decreed the claim but the relief of ejectment, however, was denied. Two appeals therefore, were preferred-one by owner Durgaprasad and the other by the lessee Chunnilal - which were heard together in the High Court. Both the appeals were disposed of in terms of a compromise that was arrived at. The relevant terms of the said compromise decree were these :

(1) That the appellant (Durgaprasad) agrees that he will permit the respondent No. 2 (the present appellant) to remain in possession of the suit premises till 28-2-1979 on payment of compensation for the use and occupation thereof at the rate of Rs. 14,250/- per quarterly payable in advance on 1st March, 1st June, 1st September and 1st December, every year.

(2) That in case the respondent No. 2 continues in occupation of the suit premises till the expiry of the last quarter, i.e., 28-2-1979, it shall be bound to remove the theatre, other structures, machinery, fixtures, fittings, etc., before the close of 28-2-1979 and give the vacant possession of the plot to the appellant on 1-3-1979. After the expiry of 28-2-1979, the respondent No. 2 or any one claiming in it shall not be entitled to enter the suit premises or remove anything movable or immovable left in the premises and appellant shall have full claim over it.

3. The respondent delivered the letter date 27-1-79 to Shri Lohadia, the authorised agent of the appellant-Company, reminding the appellant of the terms of the said compromise and of the due date 28-2-1979 which was approaching. He stated that he would insist on due performance of the terms of the said compromise and added that the compromise must be honestly and faithfully obeyed by all of us.

4. The appellant thereafter sent one letter dated 1-2-1979 under certificate of posting to the respondent informing the respondent that as per the oral agreement arrived at between them in the meetings that took place on 27th, 28th and 29th of January 1979, this plot is leased out again for a period of fifteen years, and the terms would be finalised and communicated after the resolution was passed by the Company. The appellant then sent one resolution of the Company dated 15-2-1979 incorporating therein the terms of the lease for fifteen years.

5. The appellant-Company thereafter commenced the present suit for a specific performance of this oral agreement of lease of this plot for fifteen years and applied for ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from executing the decree. The application was hotly opposed by the respondent, denying stoutly the alleged oral agreement of lease that was set up by the appellant. The learned trial Judge, having rejected the said application, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Having heard Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri J.C. Pande, the learned counsel for the respondent, I find that the order passed by the lower Court really calls for no interference. The grant of ad interim injunction, as is well known, is a remedy both temporary and discretionary and since the discretion is required to be exercised before the entire evidence is unravelled and true facts fully

Click Here to Read the rest of this document