- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for appellant. Refusal of temporary injunction is the grievance of the appellant in this appeal.
(2.) IN respect of the Taxi Stand of Nagarpalika, appellant was given permission to manage subject to payment by him amounts as stipulated in written agreement. There is a clause in the written agreement that such permission can be renewed on terms as stipulated in the agreement. After the period of permission expired, appellant wanted renewal. INstead of renew ing the permission, the same was put to auction. Appellant took part in the auction. Since he could not become highest bidder, he filed the suit in effect to enforce renewal clause in the agreement. Along with the plaint, he filed application for temporary injunction which having been refused, this appeal has been filed. In case we eater into merit of the case to find out prima facie case, our finding is likely to prejudice either party. Therefore, assuming that appellant may have a prima facie case and balance of convenience being in favour of grant of temporary injunction, we considered the question of irreparable injury to plaintiff. On the own case of plaintiff, his right is dependant on an agreement. If the agreement is directed to be enforced, plaintiff would learn some profit. Therefore, plaintiffs injury if any on account of deprivation of renewal would lead to loss sustained by him an account of breach of agreement. This loss can be adequately compensated. No satisfaction explanation from plaintiff how injury on account of loss of money would be irreparable.
(3.) IN result, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine under Order XLI, Rule 11, C. P. C. Appeal dismissed. .;