( 1 ) BEING of the opinion that a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Kartar Singh v. Shambhu dayal Lakhsar (F. A. F. O. No. 288 of 1976 decided on October 20, 1976) requires reconsideration a Division Bench has referred this appeal for decision by a larger Bench.

( 2 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal. It arises out of a suit for an injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-appellant alleged that the defendant-respondent held a stage carriage USL-6100 which was covered by permit No. 1116. This permit was valid for Meerut-Gulaothi-Dho-lana route. In virtue of two agreements dated August 14, 1961 and June 4, 1962 the defendant transferred the permit No. 1116 as well as the vehicle No. USL-6100 to the plaintiff on being paid the sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ -. The plaintiff hence became the exclusive owner of the permit as well as the vehicle. Subsequently the plaintiff replaced the vehicle by another one (UPG-4091 ). The plaintiff applied for permission for transfer of the aforesaid permit. Initially the defendant gave his consent but subsequently he filed an objection and withdrew his consent. Thereafter the application for transfer was not pressed before the Regional Transport Authority. The defendant tried to take forcible possession of the vehicle. The plaintiff hence came to Court and prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs plying of the bus No. UPG-4091 on permit No. 1116 on Meerut-Gulaothi-Dholana Route.

( 4 ) THE defendant contested the suit. He denied that he ever executed the agreement to transfer permit or the vehicle. He also denied receiving Rs. 50,000/ -. He alleged his, signatures had been obtained on blank stamped and unstamped papers. On the pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed issues and recorded his findings as follows:-Issues findings 1. Whether the defendant 1. Yestransferred the bus and the permit to the plaintiff as alleged by him in the plaint ?. 2. Whether the alleged 2. Yestransfer is illegal as alleged by the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is in 3. The defendant was possession of the disputed in possession of the bus vehicle and the permit?. If UPG-4091 till May so, its effect?1975. The plaintiff got possession over this vehicle on December 3, 1976 and was in possession since then. 4. To what relief, if any, is the 4. Since the transfer of plaintiff entitled?. the vehicle and the permit in favour of the plaintiff was illegal, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs. On these findings the suit was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench. For the plaintiff-appellant, reliance was placed upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh mentioned above. The Bench felt that the aforesaid decision requires reconsideration. The matter was referred to a larger Bench.

( 6 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing before the Full Bench, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint. After hearing counsel the Bench permitted the plaint as well as the written statement to be amended. As a result of the amendment the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs: "1. It may be declared that the vehicle No. UPG-4091 covered by the stage carriage permit No. 1116 belongs to him (the plaintiff); 2. A mandatory injunction may be issued directing the defendant Mirza Mohammad Ismail to execute necessary documents required to effectuate the transfer of permit No. 1116 in favour of the plaintiff: 3. A mandatory injunction may be issued directing the defendant Mirza Mohammad Ismail not to operate any stage carriage vehicle under the permit No. 1116".

( 7 ) ON the basis of the amendment of the pleadings the Court on September 3, 1980 framed the following additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for in paragraph 15 (a) of the plaint as amended ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document