The High Court has the power to intervene under Art. 227 of the Constitution when a court or tribunal passes an order without jurisdiction or in violation of basic principles of law, even if an alternative legal remedy is available.

By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with Ss. 115 and 151 of the CPC the petitioners have assailed the order dated 8-4-93 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge-1, Gauhati in Misc. (J) Case No. 36/93 arising out of T. S. No. 81/93 granting ex parte ad interim injunction on the basis of an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. restraining the petitioners/defendants from acting on the basis of the contract dated 5-4-93.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as follows :- The petitioner No. 1 is a Pvt. Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having its office at Shanti House, G. S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-7 and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager of the Company. The petitioners company carries on the business of Tea broking. The petitioners company for the purpose of doing business of tea broking has to collect samples and binds the packets belonging to the clients to be supplied to the buyers to facilitate them to make the bid in the auction process. In order to carry out the aforesaid business the petitioners Company used to engage contractors for the purpose of collecting samples and binding samples for sale in auction. In course of its business the petitioners company engaged the opposite party No. 1 Firm, namely, M/s M. B. Enterprises having its registered office at Pub-Sarania Gauhati represented by the opposite party No. 3. The terms and conditions under which the arrangements made with the opposite party No. 1 was that they will collect the samples and bind it for each financial year which is subject to renewable at the end of each financial year i.e. 31st March of every year subject to maximum period up to 31st March, 1994. It was further stipulated in the terms and conditions of the contract that the contract has to be renewed in each financial year and unless it is renewed the same would not have any effect.

3. Sometime on 23-3-93 for the purpose of getting the better service and to enable all firms/contractors to participate in the collecting samples and binding the samples packets the petitioners company floated a tender by publishing in the daily English News paper, the Sentinel. Pursuant to the floated tender several intending parties submitted their tenders for the said work and the petitioners on the basis of the rates quoted by the tenderers selected the pro forma opposite party and an agreement was entered into with the pro forma opposite party on 31-3-93 for a period of 3 years commencing from 1-4-1993. The aforesaid tender was floated as the petitioners company decided to renew the agreement for the said contract with the opposite parties only up to 31st March, 93. The pro forma respondents have completed Sale No. 16 regarding collecting the samples and making the packets etc.

4. The petitioners company having apprehended some troubles from the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 in awarding the contract to the proforma opposite parties on the basis of tender floated, lodged a Caveat in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge-1, Guwahati and the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 40/93 dated 24-3-93 describing Shri S. K. Baruah (O.P. No. 3 herein) and M/s M. B. Enterprises as prospective plaintiff praying for a hearing in the event of filing any stay and injunction petition before passing any order on such plaint and injunction petition. The notices of the Caveat was duly served to Shri S. K. Baruah and M/s. M. B. Enterprises by registered post and the receipt of which was also filed along with the Caveat in the court of Asstt. District Judge-1, Guwahati.

5. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed a suit being T.S. No. 81/93 on 8-4-93. In the Court of Asstt. District Judge-1, Gauhati against the petitioner company praying inter alia for a decree declaring that the contract work executed on 6-4-1991 by the petitioner/defendants with the plaintiffs/opposite parties is stil