Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 22-7-1994 passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Udaipur by which learned Judge reversed the order of trial court dated 2-12-1993. The trial court by order dated 2-12-1993 dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff/non-pe-titioner holding that there is no prima facie case and plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable injury and there is no balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff/non-petitioner. The Appellate Court set aside the above order of trial court and allowed the injunction appliation and granted injunction order to the effect that the General Insurance Company shall obey the instruction issued for allotment of work to the surveyors bona fidely and General Insurance Company shall not treat the plaintiff/non-petitioner discriminatory. The appellate court further bound down the defendant/petitioner Companies that they should not mala Fidely and in contravention of rules change the panel of surveyors. The above order of the first appellate court dated 22-7-1994 is under challenge.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff in his suit claimed that he is an empanelled surveyor possessing the qualification to be appointed as Surveyor. The plaintiff further submitted that an order dated 17-10-1985 has been passed appointing him as Surveyor for the Insurance Companies. His licence is renewed upto 17-10-1994. The plaintiff is full time Surveyor. According to plaintiff, as per instructions issued by non-applicant No. 1 (non-petitioner No. 10), Surveyors are entitled to get the survey work by rotation. Despite these instructions, Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company Ltd. is not giving work to the Surveyors by rotation and giving work to only 2-3 persons. It is further submitted that even non-applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are giving work of survey to the persons who are not having sufficient experience and qualification. It is also submitted by plaintiff that Officers named in the plaint are having ill-will against the plaintiff and they are threatening that licence of plaintiff will be cancelled, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for injunction seeking relief that defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 9 be restrained from removing name of plaintiff from the panel which was approved by the Empanel Committee vide order dated 18-12-1986 and work of survey be allotted to the approved Surveyors by rotation without there being any discrimination The plaintiff further sought relief of injunction that defendants be bound down that defendants should give work of survey to the experienced and approved Surveyors who are having sufficient educational qualification and are included in the list of Surveyors. The plaintiff further prayed that persons who are not having sufficient educational qualification and experience, they should not be allotted the work of assessment.
(3.) The plaintiff further claimed that defendant No. 9 be restrained from changing the panel which is in force from 1-1-1991 to 1-2-1992 and no change be effected in this panel. In addition to above, plaintiff sought relief of initiation of departmental proceedings against the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4.;