Consequently, the respondents filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their possession and running of the business.
But, on appeal, the district Court has set aside the direction to run the business and dismissed the application for appointment of Receiver which came to be affirmed by the High Court.
The admitted position is that pursuant to a agreement the respondent are alleged to have companye into possession of the suit property for running the business or a hotel.
The appellants filed an application under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a Receiver and respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 for an ad interim injunction.
Though the trial Court had refused to issue the direction for appointment of Receiver, it had issued an injunction against the respondents restraining them from running the business.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench made on February 4, 1994 in Civil Misc.
The High Court has set aside the appointment of the Receiver qua the property.
Pending suit, both the parties came to file applications.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that it is his exclusive property and the respondents have numbermanner of right to companye into possession.
Leave granted.
Appeal Nos.
It is the case of the respondents their possession and running of the business.
294/88 and 311/68.
