1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. Date : 27.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ajay Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner/defendant in this writ petition has challenged the orders of two courts below – (1) order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (JD), Bikaner and order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Court of District Judge, Bikaner. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for injunction alleging that he purchased a truck for a consideration of Rs.18,82,785/- on condition that out of this sale consideration, the defendant vendor will give concession of Rs.33,285/- to the plaintiff on cash down payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. the plaintiff to the defendant. The remaining amount of Rs.16 lakhs will be paid through finance company for which the plaintiff will take loan. The plaintiff stated that he paid Rs.2,49,500/- in cash to the defendant, dealer of truck, and paid Rs.16 lakhs through Tata Motors Finance Ltd. After taking the above consideration, the truck having Chassis No.448091 ARZ 202857 was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. At that time, all the details were fed in the computer for issuing receipts but the receipts were not given to the plaintiff at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The plaintiff went to the defendant after 2-3 days and demanded the receipts and sale letter but the defendant avoided to give the receipts and sale letter to the plaintiff, without which, the plaintiff could not have obtained the registration of the truck and permit to ply the vehicle on road. Ultimately, the defendant denied that he gave concession of Rs.33,285/- and started demanding this amount for issuing the sale letter and receipt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that since he has paid complete sale consideration of Rs.18 lakhs to the defendant, therefore, the defendant is bound to give proper 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. documents including the sale letter so that the plaintiff may use his vehicle of huge costs of Rs.18 lakhs. The plaintiff prayed for interim injunction against the defendant for obtaining the proper documents from the defendant. The trial court vide order dated 22.7.2008 allowed the plaintiff's injunction application on the ground that admittedly, the defendant has received Rs.2,49,500/- on 25.2.2008 as down cash payment and paid Rs.15,97,000/- through finance company and there is dispute of only Rs.36,285/-, then there is prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court observed that at this stage, the trial court is not required to decide whether the cash concession of Rs.33,285/- was given to the plaintiff or not, as this point can be decided only after evidence but the defendant has no right to keep the bills for such petty amount. The trial court also held that in case, if injunction will not be granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, who purchased the vehicle for a consideration of Rs.18 lakhs, will not be able to get the vehicle registered and will not be able to ply the vehicle on road. The appellate court by order dated 4.8.2008 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. upheld the injunction order passed by the trial court dated 22.7.2008. Hence, this writ petition. From the facts mentioned above itself, it is clear that the two courts below failed to appreciate the facts and committed serious error of law in drawing inference that since the plaintiff has paid consideration of Rs.18 lakhs for purchase of commercial vehicle truck and there is dispute of Rs.33,285/- only, then the defendant has no right to deny the delivery of bill to the plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff has paid Rs.18 lakhs to the defendant but there was no justification for the trial court to grant any injunction in mandatory form without securing the interest of the defendant also when the plaintiff could have avoided the injury to him by paying Rs.33,285/- subject to objection. There may be prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that he has paid Rs.18 lakhs to the defendant but admittedly, the sale consideration was Rs.18,82,785/-. Prima-facie there is no material on the record to prove that the defendant/petitioner agreed to give concession of Rs.33,285/- as it is only contention of the 5 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. plaintiff which has been denied by the defendant and, therefore, the trial court rightly observed that this issue can be decided only after evidence in the suit. In that situation, the plaintiff could avoid the loss to him (if it is there) by making payment of petty amount of Rs.33,285/-. It is settled law that for obtaining any relief of equitable nature, the plaintiff is required to prove that he has strong prima-facie case and in case, injunction is not granted, he will suffer irreparable injury. How the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury when he could have avoided it by paying Rs.33,285/- which is an ascertained amount. The courts below failed to note that while granting injunction in favour of the applicant, the court can impose condition also. In the facts of the case, if the plaintiff pays only disputed amount of Rs.33,285/-, then the defendant shall hand over the proper documents for the sold truck and the plaintiff will not be denied complete documents for the truck on account of non-payment of alleged interest amount claimed by the defendant. In view of the above, this writ petition is 6 SB Civil Writ Petition No.5890/2008 Dunac Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surja Ram. allowed, the orders of the courts below dated 22.7.2008 and 4.8.2008 are modified and it is ordered that in case, the plaintiff/respondent pays Rs.33,285/- to the defendant/respondent, the respondent shall issue/give all relevant documents to the plaintiff for the vehicle in question. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya