The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Contract Act, Section 170, and the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 151, in determining the entitlement to custody of the goods and the grant of temporary injunction.

( 1 ) THE facts of this case are simple. The defendant applicant M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking, which provides transport services to parties exporting their goods. It appears that the applicants had entered into a contract with M/s. Bhola Nath Industry, Varanasi for transporting their woollen yarn through the container services of the applicants to Bombay. The applicants engaged M/s. Vijai Trading and Transporting Company, the first defendant whose proprietor, D. S. Mishra is the second defendant for carrying the goods in the container. M/s. Vijai Training and Transport Company in turn had taken the services of the plaintiff Prabhu Narain Singh, proprietor of M/s. O. D. C. Roadways for transporting these goods.

( 2 ) A dispute about the payment of hire charges arose between the plaintiff and M/s. Vijai Training and Transport Company. The plaintiff Prabhu Narain Singh who is the opposite party No. 1 in this revision filed a suit for injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2"directing them not to get the possession of the container unless the dues of the plaintiff are cleared". No relief in the suit is claimed against M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation.

( 3 ) IN paragraph No. 8 of the plaint it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 but they have been impleaded as parties as proforma defendants for effectual adjudication of the dispute.

( 4 ) IN the suit an application was filed by the Central Warehousing Corporation praying that the container No. TRI 499102 be given to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 so that it can be transported to its destination. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. By the order dated 28-11-2002 the trial Court rejected the application. This is the order impugned in this revision.

( 5 ) THE trial Court has referred to the objection of the plaintiff for the release of the goods in favour of defendant-applicant in this revision. These objections are that the plaintiff is bailee of the goods and has a lien over them until the hire charges are paid and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have not filed any counter claim. The trial Court has also referred to the pendency of writ petition filed in this Court and to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case for holding that it was not a fit case for release of the goods by an interlocutory order. As regards the loss being suffered by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 it is stated that the same could be compensated in terms of money. It has also been noted that the suit is pending at the stage of evidence and could be disposed of expeditiously.

( 6 ) SRI R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the plaint case itself there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, that the containers admittedly belonged to the applicants and the applicant had no concern with the payment of hire charge to the plaintiff and as such there was no justification for the plaintiff to retain the custody of the containers. He relied upon AIR 1976 All 88, Official Liquidator v. Swarup Cold Storage Ltd. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C. K. Roy, learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party that the plaintiff is a bailee and has lien over the goods and can retain the container until the hire charges are paid. He relied upon Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act and upon decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 4 JT (SC) 507 : (AIR 2001 SC 1806), Shipping Corporation of India v. C. L. Jain.

( 7 ) ALTHOUGH the trial Court has referred to the objection of the plaintiff that no counter-claim was filed by the applicant/defendant Nos. 3 and 4 it has not given any specific finding upon the effect of the counterclaim not having been filed upon the maintainability of the application of the defendant-applicant Central Warehousing Corporation. As such it is necessary to consider this