An agent whose agency is terminated without sufficient cause or reasonable notice, and with retrospective effect, can seek compensation for the loss sustained and can also obtain an injunction to restrain the principal from interfering with the agency.

( 1 ) THIS is a first appeal arising out of an Order passed on 21-11-1995 in Civil Suit No. 13 of 1995 by the District Judge, East and North, Sikkim at Gangtok ordering for an injunction over the effect of an order of termination of agency or contract.

( 2 ) THE fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Plaintiff (Respondent before us) was appointed agent, or in other words agency was awarded in favour of her, for dealing with hides and skins within the State of Sikkim. The agency was for five years with effect from 1-10-1991. Being the lawfully appointed agent of the Government, the plaintiff started purchasing hides and skins from various butcheries within the State of Sikkim and dealing with the same either by selling it to the local utilisers or by way of exporting them under proper permit from the Government. The business was going on till before 5-8-1995. But suddenly on 5-8-1995 the plaintiff found the Remeshwar of Lall Market forcibly taking away about 500 pieces of hides and skins, collected and stored by the plaintiff, from the store room at Majhitar. On being questioned Rameshwar replied that he was doing so under the authority from the Department of Animal Husbandry. Plaintiff brought it to the notice of the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department on 7-8-1995. In response to the complaint lodged with the Secretary, the Additional Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rangpo and the concerned police stationson 8-8-1995 to maintain peace and tranquillity in the area to enable the plaintiff to carry on his works properly. Simultaneously on the same date the plaintiff got another letter from the Principal Director of Animal Husbandry Department indicating that the agency of the plaintff was terminated retrospectively from 5-8-1995.

( 3 ) ON receipt of the letter of termination the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. on the Government on 9-8-1995 and ultimately the suit which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 13 of 95 was filed on 18-5-1995 together with an application for interim order of injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. Because of urgency, leave of the Court was also sought for under Section 80 (2), C. P. C. Some interim order of injunction was passed on the very same date of filing of the suit and application and ultimately on 21-11-1995 the impugned order was passed on hearing both the sides. Being aggrieved by the order this Appeal has been preferred.

( 4 ) IN the suit, written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants who are the Commissioner-cum-Secretary and the Principal Director of Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Sikkim. Both of them are the appellants before us. Written objection against the prayer for interim orders of injunction was, however, filed on behalf of Appellant No. 2 only.

( 5 ) IN this appeal we are to see if the Learned District Judge was justified in granting the prayer for temporary injunction.

( 6 ) SOME defects have been pointed out by the Learned Advocate-General at the initial stage of argument for the Appellants. He has mentioned that no substantive prayer for permanent injunction has been made in the plaint. He also points out that the reliefs claimed in the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and in the plaint vary substantially. 6a. It is the contention on behalf of the Respondent that in the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. the reliefs sought for were for cancellation of the letter of termination of her agency and for compensation for the mischief caused to her on 5-8-1995 and also for costs of the suit. In the plaint she has prayed for a declaration that her agency has been continuing and for a decree for cancellation of the order of termination, for compensation, for cost of the suit and also for interim injunction.

( 7 ) THUS we see that in the notice there was no mention of any claim for injunction. It may be noted that the statutory notices are to be