- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2009, passed by learned Sub -Judge -I, Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 12 of 2008 rejecting the prayer of injunction made by the appellants (hereinafter referred as the plaintiffs).
(2.) THE learned trial court held that though the plaintiffs have got prima facie . case and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour but no irreparable loss or damages will be caused to them, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the injunction is refused. However, it was ordered that the respondents (hereinafter referred as the defendants), shall not enter into a contract for mining and lifting of minerals with any other party. I.A. No. 3265 of 2009: This I.A. has been filed for condoning the delay of about 19 days in filing the cross -objection. Heard. On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay in filing the cross -objection is condoned. I.A. No. 3265 of 2009 is disposed of. CO. No. 14 of 2009: This Cross -Objection has been filed by the defendant no. 2 -Sri Ram Mineral Company (SRMC for short) against the said findings of the trial court that the plaintiffs have got prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour. It appears that some of the partners of defendant no. 1 -Singhbhum Mineral Company (SMC for short), reconstituted the Firm in the name of SRMC. Before the court below, only SRMC appeared and contested the injunction matter. In this court also, only SRMC has appeared by filing Caveat and Cross -Objection. In these circumstances, the appeal and the cross objection were heard together and are being disposed off in the absence of SMC, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3.) MR . Vikash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, supported the findings of the trial court given in favour of the plaintiffs and assailed the findings given against them.;