SHINGHAL, J.—This is an appeal by defendant Ramchandra against the order of the Additional District Judge, Shri Ganganagar, dated June 5, 1970, making absolute the ad interim injunction dated 26, 1970.

2. The facts are quite simple. The plaintiff instituted the suit on March 17, 1970, against the Union of India and the present appellant Ramchandra, for the grant of a perpetual and a mandatory injunction under sec. 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 4,500/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff was a vendor of hot and cold drinks at Hanumangarh railway station, and carried on that business in two stalls constructed by the Rail-way Administration, and in six trollies, on payment of the fee therefor. The plaintiff paid the vending fee up to December 31, 1969, and any previous notice of termination of the contract was waived by the Railway authorities. It was therefore pleaded that the plaintiff was surprised when it was informed that it would not be allowed to carry on the vending work beyond January 1, 1970. The plaintiff felt aggrieved because it was not served with a notice of three months, and it therefore served a notice under sec. 80 C.P.C. and refused to vacate the stalls. Its trollies were, however, not allowed to ply. It was specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 of the plaint as follows,—

"10. That the last contract was for a period of three years beginning from 1st January, 1968 (later corrected to read 1st January, 1968) and terminating on 31st December, 1970. The defendant No. 1 could not terminate this contract before this date except as provided in the contract and by giving three months notice." (The brackets are mine.)

On these averments the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of damages amounting to Rs. 4 500/- for the period of 3 months which had passed up to the institution of the suit, and also for the issue of a perpetual and a mandatory injunction.

3. Along with the plaint the plaintiff filed an application dated March 17, 1970 under sec. 37 of the Specific Relief Act read with O. 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the Union of India from dispossessing it from the two stalls and interfering with the plying of the six trollies within the precincts of the railway station. A temporary injunction was also prayed against the present appellant Ramchandra for the removal of his trollies. An affidavit was filed in support of the application. There was, however, no prayer for the issue of an ad interim temporary injunction, Arguments on the application were heard on March 18, 1970 as if it was an application for the grant of an ad interim injunction, and it was fixed for pronouncing the order on 20 3-1970. The order was not, however, pronounced on that date and 21.3.1970 was fixed for the purpose On the adjourned date, the learned Judge drew up a long order after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiffs documentary evidence. He took note of the requirements of the law in respect of such an application, and observed that no document of the plaintiff went to show that its contract was to expire in December, 1970, or that it had been terminated by the railway administration in an unauthorised manner. The learned Judge also held that the likelihood of irreparable loss, which was an essential requirement in such cases, could not also be said to have been established. He further held that the plaintiff could claim compensation from the railway administration and recovery of damages that may be due to it. For these reasons, he reached the conclusion that it was not proper to make an ad interim order, without hearing the defendants and without seeing the original contract. He therefore directed the issue of notices to the defendants and fixed April, 28, 1970 for further consideration.

4. It appears, however, that on an application of the plaintiff dated March 25. 1970, the case was taken u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document