The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, demonstration of irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience in favor of the party seeking injunction.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. Setting-aside of the Order dated 5th November 2016, passed by Principal District Judge, Jammu (for brevity “Appellate Court”) in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing File No. 45/Appeal titled Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. M/s Muktanand Auto Ltd. and Others and maintaining of Order dated 19th September, 2014, passed by Munsiff Jammu (for short “Trial Court”) in a suit bearing File no. 19/827/Misc. titled M/s Shree Muktanand Auto Aid Ltd. and Others vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another, on the grounds made mention of in petitions on hand.

2. The case set up by petitioners is that petitioner no. 2 was initially selected for grant of retail outlet licence for petrol and other petroleum products in the month of February 2001. She is said to have apprised respondents qua her weak financial condition and requested them to allow her to have financial partners for smooth conduct of retail outlet business and as a consequence of which, partnership deed was proposed to respondents so as to add petitioner no. 3 as second partner. It is stated that proposal submitted by petitioner no. 2 was accepted and ultimately an agreement for dispensing pump and selling licence was executed between petitioners and respondents on 12th April 2002. It is also contended that land over which petrol pump was to be operated, was taken over by respondents on lease hold basis for a period of 40 years and a proper lease deed in this regard was executed. It is also stated that reconstitution of the firm, permitting Santosh Gupta as financial, was sought, but by communication dated 15th December 2003, respondent no. 2 called upon petitioner to indicate as to whether dealership granted in their favour had been transferred to third person or not and thereafter some information was sought from petitioners. It is contended that respondent no. 2 vide communication dated 18th May 2004, called upon petitioners to submit their reply within 24 hours containing a potential threat therein that on failure of petitioners to submit reply, the retail outlet licence granted to petitioners would be terminated. Faced with the situation, petitioners filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain respondents from terminating their retail outlet licence which was granted to petitioners vide agreement dated 12th April 2002. Petitioners also sought a decree of mandatory injunction seeking a direction to respondents to maintain the supply of petrol, diesel and lubricants and to implement all other day to day obligation, with a further direction to consider and dispose of the request of petitioners for change of constitution of licence. Learned 3 rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, vide order dated 24th May 2004 restrained respondents from terminating the retail outlet licence granted in favour of petitioners and also directed to maintain the supplies of petroleum products. It is averred that through respondents filed written statement in the matter yet they did never seek vacation of interim order. Another suit is stated to have been filed. In both the suits, the Trial Court vide common order dated 19th September 2014 decided interim applications and made interim orders passed therein absolute and restrained respondents from terminating the licence of petitioner as also to maintain supplies to disposal of main suit.

3. Respondents, aggrieved of order dated 19th September 2014, preferred two separate Appeals. The Appellate Court vide order dated 5th November 2016 accepted both the appeals and set-aside the Trial Court orders and as a corollary thereof, application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiffs/petitioners were dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners states that impugned order is contrary to facts and law as it has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice inasmuch as