JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff Abhishek Thakur instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 53 of 1999 before this Court. However, through an order made on 12.10.2001, order whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter, the Civil Suit (supra) as became instituted before this Court, rather became transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi.

“The value of the present suit for the purposes of Courtfee and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs.5,95,600/-. In pursuance of the amendment of the H.P Courts Act vide Amendment Act no. 16 of 2001, the original pecuniary jurisdiction of the high court has been raised to above ten lacs. Under the circumstances, this case is transferred to the Court of District Judge, Mandi, who may either try the same in accordance with law or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Mandi on 19th November, 2001.”

2. In Civil Suit (supra), the plaintiff claimed the making of the hereinafter extracted declaratory decree:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit may be decreed and a decree for declaration may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, to the effect that the defendant No. 5 is not a resident of District Mandi and as such is not entitled for grant of Indian Oil retail out for High Speed Diesel and Motor Spirit at Jarol in District Mandi. A decree for prohibitory injunction be also granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants No. 1 to 4 from issuing lettr of intend, granting the retail outlet for High Speed Diesel & Motor Spirit in favour of the defendant No. 5. In case the letter of intent is issued in the meanwhile a decree for mandatory injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the said letter of intent is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the advertisement and guidelines of the defendant No.1 and a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants No.1 -4 to allot/grant the said retail outlet to the plaintiff. The suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs.”

3. The learned trial Court concerned through his making a decision thereon, on, 28.12.2005, decreed the plaintiff’s suit.

4. The aggrieved defendant has constituted there against RFA No. 110 of 2010 before this Court.

5. Moreover co-defendant No.5 one Hamender Pal Singh, has subsequent to the decision supra being made on the Civil Suit (supra), by the learned trial Court, also instituted CWP No. 429 of 2006 before this Court. In the afore writ petition, co-defendant No.5 has prayed for the making of the hereinafter extracted main reliefs, vis-à-vis, him.

“(i) Communication dated 13.4.2006 Annexure P-10 may kindly be set aside, quashed and status quo ante for revival of letter of intend, Annexure P-1 dated 28.6.1999, as it existed prior to 13.4.2006 may kindly be restored.

(ii) It may kindly be held that letter of intent, agreement, if any, in between respondent No1. and respondent No.4 regarding retail outlet dealership at Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi is not binding on the petitioner The respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to take back the possession of said retail outlet from respondent No.4 and handover the possession of said retail out-let to the petitioner till such time as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper or till the final outcome of judgment, decree dated 28.12.2005 in Civil Suit No. 2/2002 (99)/20/2004 which is under challenge in RFA No. 110/2006 in this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) By way of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ a direction may kindly be given to such authority as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper to probe and fix responsibility on defaulting officer(s) of respondent No.1 for handing over possession of retail out let in question to respondent No.4 when Civil Court by way of judgment dated 28.12.2005, Annexure P-8 ha