Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Parties:

2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 23.10.2010 passed by learned trial court in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, Kishore Singh S/o Bachan Singh against the show cause notice issued by the appellant District Excise Officer, Nagaur seeking to cancel the licence given to plaintiff for the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. In the said suit filed for injunction, learned trial Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of impugned order dated 23.10.2010. Being aggrieved of which, the District Excise Officer, Nagaur has filed the present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, District Excise Officer, Dr. Sachin Acharya submitted that the suit itself was barred as per Section 9B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and therefore, learned trial Court could not have entertained the suit at all much less granting temporary injunction by impugned order which will achieve the very purpose of filing of the suit if the said temporary injunction continues upto 31.3.2011, the period upto which license is granted in favour of plaintiff/respondent. He further submitted that even though the appellant District Excise Officer filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC before the learned trial Court alleging therein that the suit itself is not maintainable, however, the aforesaid application was filed later on i.e. after passing of the impugned order granting temporary injunction on 23.10.2010.

4. E Converso, Mr Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondent urged that since the impugned show cause notice was without jurisdiction, therefore, the suit was maintainable and the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order.

5. A bare perusal of Section 9B of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder would show that no civil suit is maintainable against any original order passed by an Officer competent to do so under the provisions of the Act, and so also, appellate or revisional orders passed under the provisions of Section 9A of the said Act. The intention of the providing such bar against the jurisdiction of civil Court is obvious that quasi-judicial authorities under the enactment concerned should be allowed a free hand to decide the proceedings initiated by them after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned licensee:

“Section 9B. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts: No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding to set aside or modify:

(a) any original order passed by an officer competent to do so under the provisions of the Act, or

(b) any order passed under, or referred to in Section 9A.”

6. The entertainment of the civil suit in such matter, particularly, suit for injunction are likely to adversely affect the proceedings undertaken by the competent authority under the Act and therefore, a bar has been provided in Section 9B of the said Act prohibiting the civil courts from entertaining such suits or proceedings. In the present case in hand also, even though it was contention of the plaintiff that impugned show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction, however, he could have raised this point before the competent authority himself who issued the said show cause notice; and the plaintiff could not have filed the civil suit straightway against such show cause notice. Since, the Civil suit against any original order itself is barred any civil suit against show cause notice, which could result in any such original order also, has to be equally held prohibited by law.

7. Learned trial court in its impugned order even reproducing the Section 9B in para 11 of the impugned order has chosen to deflect from said bar by observing that show cause notice in the suit is not an order under Section 9A of the Act. Such a casual approach on the part of learned trial court not reading even the basic provisions carefu