Civil Revision No.6761 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6761 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Sandeep Kumar Chopra ....Petitioner Versus Ram Kishan Yadav ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: - Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate, for the caveator. GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No.26641-CII of 2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.6761 of 2010 Heard. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by Sandeep Kumar Chopra petitioner/plaintiff for quashing the orders dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P-6) and 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, respectively, vide which the application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, restraining Ram Kishan Yadav respondent/defendant, from selling, removing or shifting the bricks lying at M/s Shakti Brick Kiln, Untsal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, till final disposal of the suit, was dismissed. The facts are not disputed. The parties have been running the business of brick kiln by way of partnership. The plaintiff retired from Civil Revision No.6761 of 2010 (O&M) -2- that firm by executing a retirement deed on 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-3), after receiving back his capital amount to ` 29,11,000/-. On the same day another document was executed vide which the said amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff by means of six post-dated cheques. According to the plaintiff, the cheques, on presentment to the banker of the defendant, were dishonoured and the said amount was never paid by the defendant. However, the defendant came up with the plea that after first two cheques of ` 5,00,000/- each were dishonoured, he paid ` 10,00,000/- in cash to the plaintiff and received back those cheques and that he paid a sum of ` 15,00,000/- to the plaintiff after FIR was got registered against him. The terms of the retirement deed (Annexure P-3) clinches the issue between the parties. The plaintiff after receiving his capital from the firm retired from the firm. After his retirement he cannot interfere in the business, which is being run by the defendant and his only remedy is by way of a suit for recovery of the amount in dispute. Both the lower courts came to the correct conclusion that plaintiff had no prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction in this case. When such was the position, it cannot be said that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff or that he will suffer irreparable loss in case ad interim injunction prayed for is not granted. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Gurdev Singh) Judge October 27, 2010 R.S.