JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's revision directed against the judgment dated 5. 2. 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar whereby while setting aside the order of the learned trial court dated 25. 7. 1992 granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner owns a Bus Stand on Ganganagar-Padampur road where it operates its various buses for providing transport services in the State of Rajasthan and also on the adjoining inter-state routes. It is alleged that as per the orders issued by the Head Office of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 85,1989-/ Clause 6 and Civil petitioner dt. 27. 4. 1989, it has allowed and granted permission to the non-petitioner to park his vehicle operating on the Sri Ganganagar- Abohar inter-state route as stage carriages on payment of charges. It is also alleged that when the non-petitioner made attempt to operate its All India Tourist Permit Vehicles from the Bus Stand of the petitioner, the same was objected and the Chief Manager of the petitioner, RSRTC. Sri Ganganagar vide its letter dated 5. 6. 1992 directed the non-petitioner to desist from operating its All India Tourist Permit Vehicles from the Bus stand. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar on 16. 6. 1992 and also sought injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. for restraining the petitioner from not permitting the non-petitioner from operating its All India Tourist Vehicles. The defendant-petitioner filed written statement. The learned trial court after hearing the matter dismissed the injunction application on 25. 7. 1992 observing that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has no prima facie case. The plaintiff-non-petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar which was accepted vide order dated 5. 2. 1993. Hence, this revision. Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in reversing the order of the learned trial court merely on the ground that earlier the plaintiff-non-petitioner was allowed to operate its buses covered under All India Tourist Permit from 14. 3. 1990 and charges were being paid. He has submitted that before the trial court no evidence was produced by the plaintiff-non-petitioner to substantiate his contention. He has further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner is also illegal since it is contrary to the provisions of Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He has lastly submitted that there is no right vested in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner to use the Bus Stand owned by the petitioner. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has supported the order of the learned Additional District Judge. He has also submitted that in revisional jurisdiction no interference is called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is well settled that for deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C. P. C. balance of convenience is not only ground, apart from that plaintiff has to prove also the prima facie case as well as irreparable loss.
(3.) IN order to grant an injunction, the court must be satisfied that all the three ingredients are present. The main ground of granting injunction by the Appellate Court is that the plaintiffs are enjoying the facility since 14. 3. 1990 and for that charges are also being paid to the defendant-petitioner. Undisputedly, balance of convenience is one of the main grounds for grant of temporary injunction but for that there must be sufficient evidence on record for taking a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court and further the grant of such injunction must be according to rules. IN the instant case, admittedly the bus-stand in question is owned by the petitioner and the trial court has come to the conclusion that the defendant granted permission to the plaintiff to park his vehicle at the bus stand. The learned trial court has also observed that plaintiff has got no legal right. It may be stated that even if the plaintiff was enjoying facility since 14. 3. 1990 as observed by the Appellate Court that does not give any right to the plaintiff to park his vehicle and use Bus Stand by the defendant-petitioner, as permission once granted on payment of certain charges can be withdrawn by the owner and that does not give him any legal right. Further-more. Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides additional condition of tourist permit, though none has produced permit before the court but nevertheless its Clause 6 clearly prohibits operation of the All INdia Tourist permit vehicles covered by the All INdia Tourist Permits for being operated or parked from any at a bus-stand used by the Stage Carriages. Admittedly, the plaintiff-non-petitioner also wants to operate All INdia Tourist Permit Vehicles covered by the All INdia Tourist Permits from the said Bus-stand which is being used by the stage carriages. Under these circumstances it can be said that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in setting aside the order of the learned trial court. IN this view of the matter, if the impugned order is allowed to stand it will cause manifest injustice to the petitioner and, therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar on 5. 2. 1993 is set aside and the order passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 25. 7. 1992 is restored with no order as to costs. .;