DEVINDER GUPTA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order passed on 24. 6. 2003 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad on an application (LA. No. 1735 of 2003) filed in O. P. No. 1303 of 2003 granting interim mandatory injunction against the appellant herein directing it to restore signal services consisting of SET, setmax, AXN, CNBC, DISCOVERY and animal PLANET etc. to the respondent s network forthwith and directing the respondent to clear the arrears payable to the appellant within one week from the date of the order.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein dealing in cable Network operations had entered into an agreement with the appellant on 19. 11. 2002 for distribution of package of satellite channels to various subscribers. It appears that disputes arose between the parties. On 23. 6. 2003 respondent filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in the Court of the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying that an interim injunction be issued directing the appellants to restore the signal services of the bouquet of channels consisting of SET, SETMAX, AXN, CNBC, Discovery and Animal Planet to the respondent s network upon discharge of subscription arrears as per the respondent, basing upon the connectivity disclosed in the affiliation agreement dated 19. 11. 2002 and on payment of future subscription fee as per the said agreement pending the dispute of connectivity to be resolved by the parties through the arbitration procedure, as contemplated under Clause 14 of the said agreement. Simultaneously along with the said O. P. , an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed praying that pending disposal of the main petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, interim direction be issued as prayed for in the main petition.

( 3 ) THE Interlocutory Application presented on 23. 6. 2003 came up before the chief Judge, City Civil Court on the same day as request was made for urgent hearing of the application. The note put up by the Office on the docket reads that: sri A. Tulsi Raj Gokul, Advocate for petitioner. LA. No. 1735 of 2003 in Arb. OP. No. 1303 of 2003. Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 cpc. This petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the petitioner requesting the court to grant mandatory injunction to direct to restore the signal services currently as disclosed in the petition. O. P. is posted to 7. 8. 2003. No caveat is pending.

( 4 ) THE Chief Judge City Civil Court thereon passed the following order: sri Srinivasa Iyengar offered to file vekalath. For counter and hearing: 24. 6. 2003.

( 5 ) THE above indicates that the main petition filed on 23. 6. 2003 as well as the interlocutory application filed under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC were posted to 7. 8. 2003. As Counsel put in appearance on 23. 6. 2003 on behalf of the appellant and opposed the petition and offered to file vakalat, the case was adjourned to the very next day for filing counter. On the next day (24. 6. 2003), the impugned order was passed which is under challenge by the appellant herein who is respondent before the Court below.

( 6 ) THE impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that it has been passed by the City Civil Court in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. A request was made for urgent hearing by the Respondent to take up for order the petition on 23. 6. 2003. The appellant s counsel took notice on the same day and sought time to file counter. The Court insisted to hear the matter the very next day. As such it was adjourned only for a day. On the next day when the case was called during call work, representation was made on behalf of the appellant to take it up in the afternoon as the counter was under preparation. Chief Judge, City Civil Court called the matter at 12. 30 p. m. and denied reasonable request of the appellant to take up the case in the afternoon. The learned j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document