Terms of contract is binding on parties.

(Prayer In C.R.P. Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2005: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29,11.2005 made in I.A. No.172 of 2005 in O.S. No.36 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruthuraipoondi.

Prayer In C.R.P. No.1705 of 2005: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.10.2005 made in CM.A. No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur.)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the second defendant in the Suit in O.S. No 36 of 2005, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The first respondent, M/s. Ananda Agencies, represented by its proprietor has filed a Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2005 against the second respondent Sri Balaji Marketing and the petitioner herein as defendants 1 and 2 respectively for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the PEPSI CO products in Thiruthuraipoondi Town which is under the exclusive right of agency or the plaintiff and also for a direction against the second defendant, who is the petitioner herein to supply the products. Pending Suit, the first respondent also filed I.A. No.172 of 2005 praying for an order of interim injunction and the Trial Court has granted an ex parte injunction on 15.4.2005. The petitioner being the second defendant, and the second respondent in I.A. has filed I.A. No. 180 of 2005 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted in the above I.A. No.172 of 2005 and also another I.A. No.181 of 2005 for fixing an early date.

3. The petitioner has also filed counter affidavit in I.A. No. 172 of 2005 and the said counter affidavit was signed by D. Sreeram in the capacity of Territory Development Manager of the petitioner's company and also on behalf of the first defendant in the Suit. It was thereafter, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A. No.194 of 2005 praying for rejecting the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 172 of 2005 on the ground that the said D. Sreeram was not authorized person to sign the affidavit. The Trial Court has allowed I.A. No.180 of 2005 in I.A. No.172 of 2005 by vacating the ex parte order of injunction granted in I.A. No.172 of 2005 dated 15.04.2005 by holding that the said D. Sreeram can sign the affidavit, apart from concluding that the issue relating to the jurisdiction and cause of action can be decided only at the time of trial during evidence and also finding that the plaintiff is not an exclusive agent of PEPSI CO for the area and on the basis of the balance of convenience the order of interim injunction granted was vacated by the Trial Court.

4. It was aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs/petitioners who has filed I.A. No.172 of 2005 in O.S. No.36 of 2005, has filed C.M.A. No. 7 of 2005 and the First Appellate Court has- allowed the Appeal filed by the plaintiff, by making the interim injunction granted by the Trail Court in I.A. No. 172 of 2005 absolute on the reason that D. Sreeram has not been authorized to conduct the case on behalf of the PEPSI CO and he is not a necessary party and also by arriving at a conclusion that even though the PEPSI CO can give dealership to some other person in respect of its products, the same can be done only after canceling the dealership agreement given to the plaintiff.

5. It was as against the order of the Appellate Court in C.M.A. No.7 of 2005, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. No. 1750 of 2005 and it was consequent to the order passed in C.M.A. No.7 of 2005 by the First Appellate Court, the Trial Court has allowed I.A. No.194 of 2005 filed by the plaintiff/first respondent for rejection of the counter affidavit by the petitioner/second defendant in I.A. No.172 of 2005 and it was as against the said order dated 29.11.2005, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. No.1822 of 2005, since the said I.A. No.194 of 2005 was allowed, consequently, the Trial Court has also allowed I.A. No. 172 of 2005 on 29.11.2005 making