Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khurshid Alam, the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No.3 was working as Chief Field Manager in the petitioner Company and during the course of his employment took a loan. It transpires that a Maruti vehicle was given to the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.2395/- was required to be paid by the plaintiff to the Company in 120 monthly instalments. The plaintiff alleged that the cost of the vehicle was approximately Rs.2,10,000/- and that a sum of Rs.1,77,230/- was paid by way of instalments from the commission that he earned from the Company. The plaintiff left the services of the Company and, it is alleged, that the company initially requested the plaintiff to return the vehicle and thereafter forcibly tried to take the vehicle from the plaintiff. This resulted in the filing of the Original Suit No.250 of 2002 praying for a permanent injunction retraining the defendants-petitioners from forcibly taking the vehicle in question. In paragraph 14 of the plaint it was also alleged that the defendants had to pay a sum of Rs.6 lacs towards the commission accrued in favour of the plaintiff and another sum of Rs.1 lac towards fund (probably meaning Provident Fund). It was also alleged that the plaintiff reserved his right to recover the said amount through a separate suit.
(3.) The trial court after hearing the parties granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly taking the vehicle given to the plaintiff. The trial court further injuncted the defendants to pay the commission to the plaintiff. Aggrieved the defendants filed a Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. which was dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition.;