IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.161 of 2005 SRI NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAWAN, POLICE STATION BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLAH RAJENDRA NAGAR, POLICE STATION NAWADA, ARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ……… ……….. ………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT-APPELLANT Versus 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, “YOG KSHEM”, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, P.O. BOX NO. 19953, MUMBAI – 400421 2. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH MAHAVIR TOLA, ARA, BHOJPUR 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, “JEEVAN PRAKASH”, FRASER ROAD, PATNA – 800001 4. ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN BUILDING, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, CALCUTTA ………. ………… …….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE APPELLANT : - MR. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. RADHA MOHAN PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS : - MR. U.P. SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD,ADVOCATE MR. AMOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE ***************** 10 09.01.2009 This appeal has been filed against the order, dated 15th February, 2005 by the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara by which the application under order 39 rule 2A read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff who was an agent of the Respondent has been rejected. The short facts are that the plaintiff- appellant had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1994 before the Subordinate Judge VIII, Ara seeking a declaration that policies of 153 employees of Central Co-operative 2 Bank under table no. 11 are the policies of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to be paid the commission amount by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). The appellant also sought an order restraining the respondents 1st set from making payment of commission amount of the aforesaid policies under table no. 14 to the defendant no. 5 along with other agents. In the injunction matter, the Court below by order dated 30.09.2000 passed the order of injunction in the following terms. “……. Respondent 1st Set is restrained from making payment of amount of commission accrued on the 153 lives of the Employees of Central Cooperative Bank as per detail given in schedule 1 of the plaint to the Respondent no. 5 henceforth. They are further restrained from taking vindictive action against the appellant like refusal to accept the new policies, payment of commission amount of renewal policies or adjustment of installment of car loan save and except in accordance with law.” Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of injunction was passed on 3 30.09.2000 and soon thereafter on 21.12.2000 the appellant was served a notice terminating the appellant as an Agent of the Corporation under Section 17(i) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agent) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”). It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the action of termination is vindictive as the appellant has filed a suit against the respondent-Corporation and had been granted an order of injunction restraining the Corporation from making payment of commission amount to any other agent. It has been argued that the action of termination is vindictive as the Court below had passed a specific order of restrain against the respondents not to take vindictive steps. The submission is that at that stage the appellant could not have presumed that the respondent-Corporation would pass an order of termination and as such the appellant could not have prayed in anticipation of the order of termination that the Corporation ought to be restrained from passing an order of termination. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that the order of injunction was specific. The 4 respondents have not violated the order of injunction. The order of termination has been passed under Section 17(i) of the Regulations. It has been submitted that the Regulations specifically provide and permit that an agent may be terminated by the competent authority at any time by giving one month’s notice thereof in writing and, likewise also permits that the agent may also by giving one month’s notice inform the competent authority that he does not wish to continue as an Agent of the Corporation or any other Insurance Company. In the circumstances, it is submitted that it can not be argued that the respondents were in contempt for disobedience of the order of the Court dated 30.09.2000 in view of the statutory provisions aforesaid. This Court finds that the order of grant of injunction in favour of the appellant is quite clear and there can be no doubt regarding the interpretation of the said order. It is also admitted by the parties that there is no prayer in the plaint or any amendment of the plaint by which the plaintiff- appellant has sought an order of temporary/permanent injunction against the Corporation to restrain them from passing any order of termination, as such this Court does not find that 5 the appellant can question the order of termination in view of the pleadings in the complaint, as such I find no merit in the present appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant prays that this Court may grant permission to the appellant to amend the plaint. I do not think it proper for this Court to pass any order regarding this aspect and the appellant would be free to take appropriate action with respect to the aforesaid prayer in accordance with law. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )