ORDER

Dharmadhikari, J.-The dispute in these appeals between the appellant as Iron Ore raising/purchase contractor and the respondents who claim to have been duly appointed as new contractors by the mine owner is regarding their rival claims to exclusively run the Iron Ore mine which is the subject matter of the suit instituted by the new contractors.

2. The appellant company [shortly referred to as the old contractor] claims right to run the mine on the basis of their alleged existing contract with the mining-lease-owner.

According to the appellant, the contract with them was renewed by acceptance of their offer of renewal and consequent conduct of permitting them to work the mine on periodical payments of price in accordance with the original terms of the contract.

3. The case of the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs before the trial court [shortly referred to as the new contractors], is that the mining-lease-owner has refused to renew the contract with the appellant and has entered into a fresh contract on payment of higher price with them.

4. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the new contractors. After hearing both the parties at length, the ex parte interim injunction earlier granted under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was vacated by the trial court.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court refusing to confirm the order of temporary injunction, the new contractors appealed to the High Court. The High Court by its impugned order has allowed the appeal and in terms of the prayer made by the new contractors, has granted temporary injunction in their favour without any conditions. The old contractor is, therefore, before us in these appeals.

6. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties at great length.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant after referring to various documents on record and strongly relying on the decision in Gardner vs. Blaxill - [1960 (2) All. E.R. 457], contended that renewal of the contract can be implied by conduct of the parties. It is further contended that admittedly after expiry of the term of the contract, the appellant was running the mine and making payments for the extraction of the ore to the mining-lease-owner. The new contractors by offering higher price to the owner made a surreptitious attempt to take possession of the mine by seeking ex parte injunction. The appellant had already filed a caveat in the trial court in anticipation of filing of a suit against them and threat to their rights in the mine. Ignoring the caveat, the trial court was misled into passing an ex parte order of temporary injunction without any notice to the appellant. An ex parte order of temporary injunction on ground of urgency by invoking proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was obtained when there existed none and in any case no emergent circumstances confronted the plaintiffs as not to notice the opposite party and grant opportunity of hearing to it. The trial court in the order granting ex parte temporary injunction did not record reasons. Hence, the order suffered incurable infirmity.

8. It is submitted that thus practising misrepresentation and deception, the new contractors obtained an ex parte order of temporary injunction and being armed with it, made forcible entry into the mine. The trial court, later on, vacated the temporary injunction after hearing both the parties. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that as the new contractors could not have obtained a contract in their favour during existence of a renewed contract in favour of the old contractor, this Court should allow these appeals, vacate the order of temporary injunction and restore the statute quo ante by permitting the appellant to take possession of the mine for uninterrupted working.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the mining lease owner and the new contractors submitted that, in terms of the original contrac