ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC is directed against order dated 07.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Churu, whereby, the application filed by appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and it has been directed that the appellant shall pay Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation.
(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant indicating himself as Manager, S.R. Shopping Mall, Sardarshahar, District Churu. It was, inter alia, claimed that the plaintiff has a registered institution S.R. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( "?the Act "?) whose Directors are - Rajkumar Soni (plaintiff's father), Indra Devi, plaintiff, Pooja Devi, Sunil Kumar Soni and Mamja Devi; Firm is registered under the Trade Mark Act as S.R. Group whose registration number is 2769947 dated 25.07.2012; the plaintiff in the capacity of Manager of S.R. Group is looking after and doing all the work; the Firm is engaged in construction, repair and building and arranges material for construction of buildings. It was claimed that plaintiff's firm S.R. Group, S.R. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. have constructed S.R. Palace Hotel, S.R. Plaza, S.R. Complex in Sardarshahar and have got good reputation in the market; on account of such reputation and registration the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contacted plaintiff's father and gave oral contract for conducting business as S.R. Shopping Mall at their plot of land on 24.12.2010 by constructing commercial building, offices and residential flats in the name of S.R. Shopping Mall. It was then alleged that defendants entered into contract in the month of December, 2011 with plaintiff's father Rajkumar Soni for construction of four storied building and it was agreed that the defendants would not spend any money on the construction, demolition of existing construction, excavation of the underground and the entire amount would be spent by the plaintiff; when plaintiff and his father sought a written agreement, they were assured that they would not be cheated; it was then claimed that agreement was entered by Bhagu Ram for demolition of the existing construction, with Surja Ram for excavation of the land and it was agreed that the amount for the said work would be paid by partner of S.R. Building - Indra Devi Soni. The construction work was given to Kanheya Lal and he was paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash as advance payment. It is claimed that the plaintiff continued to work and got the existing construction demolished, excavation done and started raising construction and spent a sum of Rs. 71,01,876/-. As soon as the construction was started, customers started approaching and agreements were executed with them. It was claimed that when the defendants started executing agreement with third parties without the consent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff insisted for putting the agreement on table, which resulted in the defendants getting excited and told that neither the plaintiff nor his father would be permitted to enter the construction site and that they have no relation to the premises; it was claimed that by oral agreement the plaintiff was told to be given 50% of the profit, construction charges and the name of the premises was kept as S.R. Shopping Mall, where after, allegations were made regarding the conduct of the respondents in seeking to ease out the plaintiff. Based on the said averments, the following reliefs were sought in the plaint:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) Along with the suit an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed, wherein, the relief identical to relief as quoted hereinbefore was sought.;