A suit against the Government or a Public Officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity must be filed after serving a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. in the manner prescribed. Leave of the Court is required to be obtained before or at the most while filing the plaint for institution of the suit.

( 1 ) THE F. A. F. O. is directed against an order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing on application for issue of ad interim injunction and restraining the Railway authorities from encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant in connection with a contract entered into between the parties.

( 2 ) THE short questions that arise for determination, apart from other somewhat irrelevant and almost insignificant points urged are, (I) Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for issue of temporary injunction ? and, (ii) Whether the suit is bad for want of a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

( 3 ) THE plaintiff had entered into a contract with the Railways for supply of angle iron as per specifications after re-rolling raw material to be supplied by the Railway. There is no material disagreement about the quantity of angle iron to be supplied after re-rolling against a given quantity of raw material after accounting for agreed loss of raw material in the re-rolling process. It is undisputed that against the bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- furnished by the plaintiff, 257. 770 metric tons of billets (raw material) was supplied. Against this the plaintiff supplied only 102. 899 metric tons of angle iron (92. 70 metric tons, according to defendants ). Although the balance quantity remained lying with the plaintiff no further supply of angle iron after re-rolling was admittedly made. The entire re-rolling work was stipulated to be completed by 30-6-1982 but this was not done. According to the plaint allegation, conditions in Punjab where its plants were located were far from being normal due to after effects of operation Blue Star and this prevented the plaintiff to carry out the work undertaken by it. It is also alleged that breach was made by the defendant by failing to supply the balance quantity of raw material and to extend time for completing the contract.

( 4 ) AT the very outset we may point out that the learned Counsel has strenuously tried to impress upon us that as the Court below had fixed a time limit to conclude his submissions he was handicapped in placing the entire facts. However, without entering into that controversy any further we permitted him to make his submission to his hearts content and heard him patiently until he had nothing more to say. We hope that the learned counsel now does not entertain any feeling that he had not been heard in full. We are purposely putting this fact in writing lest he may again raise such an objection at some later stage.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence in support of its case except for an affidavit with an annexure containing the terms subject to which plaintiffs tender had been accepted. On a consideration of the plaint allegations and what has been asserted in the affidavit, we are not at all satisfied that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case. None of the three prerequisites for grant of an interim injunction has been established. It is well settled that no temporary injunction should be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury. Absence of any of these three ingredients must entail rejection of the application.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, Sri Rama Nand, learned counsel for the appellants, has made a statement before us that the bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- was furnished by the plaintiff towards payment of the price of the raw material which was supplied by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. In para 5 of the plaint-also it is admitted that Bank Guarantee for this sum was furnished for part of the raw material to be supplied by defendant No. 1. Thus, on its own showing the bank guarantee had been furnished only against the supply of nearly 257. 770 metric tons of billets. According to annexure to the affidavit in support of the application for temporary injunction, it had