The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must consider the relevant legal provisions and the plaintiff's obligations under the law before granting relief in an ad interim order. Additionally, objections to the maintainability of the suit can be raised through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, prior to filing the written statement.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition, are that plaintiff -respondent, who is running several buses, filed the suit for rendition of accounts and for injunction before the Civil Court, namely, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar. There are several allegations in the suit against the taxing authorities and according to plaintiff-non-petitioner the defendant-petitioner are not giving the true and correct account of the road tax and special road tax to the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The plaintiff in the suit prayed that petitioner be directed to give statement of accounts about the road tax and special tax and, thereafter, adjust the accounts by giving credit and debit of the amount which has been paid by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The plaintiff prayed that till the account is settled, the defendant be restrained from obstructing operation of the buses of the plaintiff .

3. The plaintiff also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which appears to have been registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 6/2004 and in that petition an interim order was passed by the Court on 03.02.2004 that till the complete account (of tax) is shown to the plaintiff , the defendant shall not stop the plying of the buses of the plaintiff-company. It is not clear from the record that whether that order either was vacated or modified, but the trial Court in its order-sheet dated 8th July, 2004 recorded in the Civil Original Case No. 14/2004 clarifying that at present there is no stay order against the tax recovery by the defendants. However, the trial Court observed that DTO, Ganganagar shall adopt one mode against all the vehicles in the matter of recovery of taxes and he should not act carelessly. What was the necessity for issuing such direction in civil suit filed by one individual is not clear from the facts and from the order of the trial Court.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner-defendant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, before the trial Court. The petitioner-defendant raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the suit as filed by the plaintiff on the ground that suit is barred under Section 16 of the Rajasthan

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The trial Court by order dated 26th March, 2004 (Annexure 2) observed that the objection can be raised in the written statement and only on this ground, the trial Court rejected the petitioner-defendants application.

5. The said order dated 26.03.2004 was not challenged by the petitioner except by filing this writ petition when the trial Court passed the order on 22.02.2005 to release 7 out of 9 buses of the non-petitioner-plaintiff . However, it appears that the petitioner preferred SBCW No. 4123/2004 and in the said writ petition, the petitioner also prayed for quashing the proceedings pending before the Civil Court on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter of taxation and permits. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after observing that the petitioner had filed application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, and that has been dismissed and the order of dismissal of said application has not been challenged by the petitioner by taking appropriate remedy before the competent Court of law. However, this Court also observed that so far as quashing of order Annexure 4 dated 14th July, 2004 is concerned, some order has been passed by the trial Court on 8th July, 2004. In view of the above subsequent order, the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

6. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the non-petitioner-plaintiff also preferred one writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4014/2004 wherein the plaintiff in addition to other reliefs, claimed the injunction against the defendant-petitioner for restraining them for penal action of seizing the vehicles of the plaintif