Civil Revision No.4794 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4794 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.8.2011 Mahesh Lal and another .....Petitioners Versus Smt.Malkiat Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that the application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by Malkiat Kaur and others respondent- plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) was accepted and Mahesh Lal and his wife Sukhwant Jit petitioner-defendants (for short “the defendants”) were restrained from interfering into the running of the passenger bus, bearing registration No.PB- 06-J-9524 enroute from from Batala to Jalandhar, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.2.2011 (Annexure P1). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the first appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P2). 3. The petitioner-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the Courts below and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through Civil Revision No.4794 of 2011 -2- the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioners are the members of original firm M/s Kabir Bus Service (Registered) (in short “the firm”) and are entitled to the indicated route permit, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in allowing the stay application of the plaintiffs, sans merit. 6. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiffs claimed that now as they are the partners of the firm, therefore, they are entitled to ply the bus on the described route, but the defendants have now forged some documents and threatened them not to ply the bus on the route permit in the name of firm. It is not a matter of dispute that Mahesh Lal defendant has already retired and plaintiffs are the existing partners of the firm. They (plaintiffs) are plying the bus continuously for the last so many years. Whether the plaintiffs or defendants are the genuine partners of the firm, would be the moot point to be decided, during the course of trial. Be that as it may, but at this stage, the defendants cannot possibly be held to be the partners of the said firm in the absence of any evidence on record. To me, the trial Court has rightly accepted the stay application of the plaintiffs. 7. Not only that, the first appellate Court has also upheld the impugned order (Annexure P1) of the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is (paras 11 and 12) as under:- “11. The perusal of the record shows that so many new partners have been inducted and so many partners, as stated in the plaint have been retired from the partnership. The route permit is with the plaintiffs and the bus which is being plied on the route is also plied by the plaintiffs. The dispute between the parties is that the plaintiff stated that instead of submitting form I, they have submitted form 5 while intimating the change in partnership to the office of Registrar of Firms and Societies and taking benefit of this mistake, the defendants now have forged some documents and started raising frivolous objections, whereas the case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have constituted a new firm and the route permit is in Civil Revision No.4794 of 2011 -3- the name of M/s Kabir Bus Service (Regd.) From the documents on record, it is clear that Mahesh Lal has already retired from the firm. The plaintiffs have also placed on record copies of partnership and dissolution deed showing them as partners. All these partnership deeds have been duly discussed by the learned lower court in its order dated 22.2.2011. As the plaintiffs are plying the bus continuously for the last so many years and even new firm, as stated by the defendants, has been constituted long long time ago. Therefore, at this stage, there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience also lies in their favour. It is yet to be proved by the defendants that they are also partners in the firm and they have interest in the route permit. 12. The argument that the route permit was given in the S.C. Category. On this argument, I find that it is admitted case that the route permit was given to the partnership firm and not to the individual. From the record and documents on the record, I find that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if the temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss.” 8. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have recorded the valid reasons in allowing the stay application filed by the plaintiffs, through the medium of impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2). Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, since there is no merit, so, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such. Civil Revision No.4794 of 2011 -4- 11. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 9.8.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE