RSA No.1675 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1675 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.08.2010 Prem Singh and another. .. Appellants Versus Vikram Singh and another. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the apellants. Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * * Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Prem Singh, son of Randhir Singh and Anil Kumar, son of Zile Singh appellant-plaintiffs (herein to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that Vikram Singh, son of Karan Singh, respondent-defendant No.1 (for brevity “defendant No.1”) stands retired from the partnership firm M/s Sai Filling Station, Samalkha, and they are also owners of the moveable and immoveable assets attached to it, with a consequential relief for a decree of mandatory injunction directing Indian Oil Corporation Limited respondent-defendant No.2 (for short “the defendant No.2”) to transfer the licence (already granted to defendant No.1)/agency in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed the written statement concisely pleading that the defendant No.2 cannot be directed to transfer the licence/agency existing in the name of defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs. It will RSA No.1675 of 2008 ::2:: not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court recorded well articulated and well reasoned finding of fact that plaintiffs are not entitled to mandatory injunction and negatived their claims in this respect vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006. The decree was affirmed by the first Appellate Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008. 4. The appellant-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decree of the Courts below and filed the instant appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 6. As is evident from the record that defendant No.2 has sanctioned the agency/petrol pump in the name of defendant No.1. As per terms of lincence, defendant No.1 was not authorized to introduce any partner except with the previous written consent of Indian Oil Corporation-defendant No.2. Admittedly, no such consent was sought by defendant No.1 to introduce the plaintiffs as partners in the firm to run the petrol pump. Therefore, Indian Oil Corporation- defendant No.2 was not bound by any agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in this respect. In the absence of the same, plaintiffs are not entitled to mandatory injunction in this relevant connection. 7. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that equipments installed by the Corporation to run the indicated petrol pump, have already been shifted by the Corporation at some other place to run the petrol pump under its own management. As petrol pump is in existence at the disputed site, therefore, otherwise the matter becomes infructuous. 8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, thus, seen from any angle as there RSA No.1675 of 2008 ::3:: is no merit, therefore, regular second appeal is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) August 11, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet