Arun Madan, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30th October, 1995 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 2/95 by which the said application of the appellant plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction in a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants was rejected.
(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, against the respondents which was later on transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It was alleged in the suit that the appellant is a proprietorship-firm and respondent No.4 i.e., the wife of the appellant is the sole proprietor of the firm. The firm is engaged in the leather business having its registered office at New Delhi. It was further averred in the suit that respondent No. 1 is a private limited Company while respondents No. 2 to 4 are its Directors. It was further contended that on 10.1.1994 under a lease agreement executed between the appellant and the respondents-defendants two machines were given on lease to the respondents for a period of one year. The monthly rent for user of the machines was fixed at Rs. 16,150/- which was about 1.9% of the price of the machines. The appellant got these machines transported from Pondicherry and installed them in the factory premises of respondent No. 1 at Tonk. The appellant had to incur-huge expenditure to the tune of Rs. 30,375/- as truck fare from Pondicherry to Delhi and Rs. 7,060/- from Delhi to Tonk and Rs. 4,696/- as octroi and other expenses. The duration of lease agreement was for a period of one year terminable on 9.1.1995. In the memo of appeal it has been contended by the appellant that the respondent Company though started production and utilised the machines continuously during the lease period but it neither paid the lease money nor returned the machines as a result of which the appellant was put to great loss and disadvantage. It has been further contended that after the expiry of the lease period i.e. 9.1.95, the appellant approached the respondents with a request for payment of lease money which was due and outstanding to the appellant and also requested them to return the machines but neither the lease money was paid nor the machines were returned. The appellant was consequently constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in which the impugned order dated 30.10.1995 declining the relief of ad-interim injunction was passed against the appellants by the learned Trial Court. In the application for grant of interim injunction appellant plaintiff had prayed for the issuance of appropriate directions from the Trial Court that the respondents be restrained from selling, alienating or transferring the machines in question or damaging the same pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.
(3.) On 19.1.95 on an application of the plaintiff, the learned Trial Court appointed Local Commissioner to inspect the machines in question at the disputed site and report to the Court accordingly.;