IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the civil court was not ousted by the provisions of the 1968 Act, and the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action for the grant of injunction.

1. All these petitions are being decided together as common questions of law arise from identical facts.

2. The first respondents in all these petitions are the original plaintiffs before the learned trial Court in their respective suits (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff). Petitioner herein has been impleaded as defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and respondent No. 2 herein has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Society) in all the suits.

3. By way of these petitions, the Company has assailed the orders passed by the learned Appellate Court under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) affirming the orders of ad- interim injunction passed by learned trial Court against the Company on the applications of plaintiffs in all the petitions.

4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these petitions are that the Society is a ‘Cooperative Society registered under Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968’ (for short “1968 Act”). Plaintiffs are the members of the Society. The said Society has been formed by the residents of the area affected by acquisition of land for establishment of cement manufacturing plants of the Company. As part of Relief and Rehabilitation Scheme formulated by the State Government for the persons affected by the aforesaid acquisition, agreement was executed between the Society and the Company to facilitate the obligation of the Company to provide direct or indirect employment to the project affected persons. As per the agreement, the Company required trucks for transportation for its raw material and final produce and the same was to be provided by the Society. In similarly fashion, few other cooperative societies have been formed and they also have entered into similar agreement with the Company.

5. Plaintiffs being members of the society have attached their respective trucks with the society for the purpose of fulfillment of object of the society. Their trucks since long have been plied by the society for the purpose of transportation of raw material and final produce of the Company.

6. On 28.08.2023, the company placed check on plying of trucks of plaintiffs for the business of the company, which means that the trucks of plaintiffs were barred from being operated for the business of the Company. Plaintiffs filed their respective suits with a prayer of restraining the defendants by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from placing any check or fetter in the plying of trucks by the company. In addition, decree for damages has also been prayed for.

7. Plaintiffs along with their respective suits also filed applications for interim injunction seeking restraint order against the company to place any check or fetter in plying of their trucks by society for transportation of raw material or final produce manufactured by the company.

8. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties had allowed the applications of the plaintiffs and the company has been restrained from causing obstruction in the transport business of plaintiffs and has further restrained the company from implementing the orders of check put on the vehicles of the plaintiffs till final adjudication of the main suit.

9. The company assailed the orders of interim injunction passed by the learned trial Court before the learned Appellate Court by invoking provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code. Learned Appellate Court has affirmed the orders passed by the learned trial Court. Hence these petitions.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

11. Learned senior counsel for the company has contended that the impugned orders are bad in law for the reasons, firstly, that without the prayer of declaration as to legality and validity of action taken by defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs could not maintain the simpliciter suit for injunction; secondly, the impugned action of placing check on the operation of veh