ORDER

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner – Sayaji Hotels Limited under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiaagainst the order 22.07.2022, passed by Additional District Judge, Indore in appeal MCA No.53 of 2019 whereby the order dated01.03.2019, rejecting the application for temporary injunction, passed in Civil Suit No.484A/2018 by V Civil Judge, Class – II, Indore has been reversed.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- plaintiff herein has filed a civil suit against Sayaji Hotels Limited and its present and ex-directors, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction. The grievance of the plaintiff was that he was a club member of Sayaji Club and was suspended by the Sayaji HotelsLimited vide order dated 28.02.2018, for a period of three months, on account of his alleged untoward activities. After the notices were served of the civil suit, a reply was filed by the petitioner/defendanton 10.07.2018, opposing the application for temporary injunction, and the learned Judge of the trial Court, after appreciating the documents filed on record, rejected the application vide order dated01.03.2019.Subsequently, an appeal was also preferred by therespondent No.1 on 02.04.2019, which was allowed by the DistrictAppellate Court vide its order dated 22.07.2022, and being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed., 4] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge of the District Appellate Court has erred in considering the fact that the suit itself was filed against the order of suspensiondated 28.02.2018, which was with effect from 01.03.2018 till and31.05.2018, and has further taken into account the order oftermination of the respondent No.1 dated 22.02.2019, despite the fact that no amendment was ever made by the plaintiff challenging the order of termination from Sayaji Club. It is further submitted that the Sayaji Club is owned by the Sayaji Hotels Limited and has no separate entity and the learned Judge of the District Appellate Court has erred in directing the Club to allow the plaintiff to participate in the Club activities.

5] Shri Choukse, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Judge of the District Appellate Court has clearly erred in not considering the fact that no irreparable injury is occasioned to the plaintiff, which could not have been compensated monetarily. It is submitted that the Club only provides certain facilities which can be availed by the plaintiff anywhere in the city and thus, there was no question of irreparable injury having caused to the plaintiff, in fact by continuing the plaintiff in the club, irreparable injury was likely to be caused to the defendant Sayaji Hotels Limited only as it is visited by various other members and the plaintiff’s activities were against the rules of the Sayaji Club. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions in the case of Dhundasingh Vs. Leeladhar and another reported as AIR 1982 MP 14; and in the case of Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. and Ors. Vs. The MunicipalCorporation of Mumbai and Anr. reported as AIR 2012 SC 1718. 6] Shri Choukse has also submitted that the District Appellate Court ought not to have taken the subsequent events into consideration, especially when these facts were not brought on record by amending the plaint and the temporary injunction application.

7] Shri Vishal Lashkari, leaned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as there was privity of contract only between the plaintiff and the Sayaji Club, and the Sayaji Hotels had no authority to terminate the membership of the plaintiff. Counsel has also submitted that the affidavits filed by the plaintiff along with the application under Order 3