B.K.Rathi - (1.) -The suit was filed by the respondent against the appellants for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appellants were restrained from holding any market/Nakhasa in disputed plot No. 652 or nearby plots on the days fixed, i.e., Tuesdays and Saturdays. It was also ordered that the appellants shall not interfere in holding of the market/Nakhasa by the respondent in plot No. 664 and should also not realise any money in the market/Nakhasa held in that plot.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants preferred appeal No. 7 of 2001, which has been dismissed by the judgment, dated 5.5.2001. AGGRIEVED by it, the present second appeal has been preferred. I have heard Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent. In this case, there are two plots in dispute, i.e., plot Nos. 664 and 652. The appellants have no concern with plot No. 652 and market/Nakhasa is held in that plot by the respondent-plaintiff on every Tuesday and Saturday. The appellants have been permanently restrained from holding market in the vicinity of this plot on Tuesday and Saturday. Regarding plot No. 664, there is agreement between the parties for holding the joint market on that plot (which is Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed by the appellants).
(3.) THE following substantial questions of law arise for decision in this appeal : (1) Whether the courts below have erred in issuing injunction restraining the appellants permanently from holding market on Saturdays and Tuesdays in the vicinity of plot No. 652? (2) Whether the courts below have misconstrued the agreement between the parties and wrongly held that it has been revoked and issued injunction regarding plot No. 664? On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard this appeal finally.;