CRP 389/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr KP Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well a s Mr P Pathak, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, who is the appell ant in Misc Appeal No.20/2010 and petitioner in Misc(J) Case No.446/ 2010. The petitioners, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 6 in aforesaid miscella neous appeal, have challenged the order dated 18th September 2010 passed in Misc (J) Case No.446/2010 granting an order of injunction in the form of direction t o the parties to maintain status quo as regards the NIT dated 19th August 2010. The respondent No.1 herein instituted Title Suit No.223/2010 in the Cour t of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati against the present petiti oners as defendants, amongst others. In the suit an application under Order 39 R ule 1 & 2 CPC was filed praying for an order of injunction. The learned court be low, by the order dated 16th September 2010, while directing issuance of notice, however, refused to pass any ad-interim order of injunction. Being aggrieved, t he respondent No.1 herein preferred Misc Appeal No.20/2010, which is presently p ending for disposal in the Court of the learned Addl District Judge, Kamrup. In the said appeal, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed, wh ich was registered as Misc(J) Case No.446/2010, wherein an order was passed dire cting the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the NIT dated 19th August 2010 issued by the Food Corporation of India. This petition is taken up for disposal, without issuing notice to the re spondent Nos.2 to 6, as they are neither the appellants in the aforesaid miscell aneous appeal nor have filed any application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, eith er before the learned trial Court or before the learned lower appellate court. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the l earned court below passed the order of status quo stalling the process of settle ment of transportation of food grains from one place to another pursuant to the NIT dated 19th August 2010, ignoring the fact that the present respondent No.1/p laintiff had never submitted any tender pursuant to such NIT. It is further subm itted that the learned court below, while granting the order of injunction, has not discussed as to how great hardship would be caused to the respondent No.1, h ow a strong prima-facie case is made out by the respondent No.1, and how the bal ance of convenience lies in favour of the present respondent No.1 for granting t he order of injunction. It is also submitted that the ground on which the order of status quo was directed to be maintained i.e. the petitioner/appellant will suffer great hardship if the tender is executed on regular basis for a period be yond two months , does not exist, as the Food Corporation of India is not going to settle the transportation contract to the tenderers pursuant to the NIT dated 19th August 2010 for a period exceeding six months. Learned senior counsel, th erefore, submits that while setting aside the order of injunction granted, the l earned first appellate Court may be directed to decide the appeal on merit at an early date. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, suppo rting the order of status quo passed by the learned court below, submits that si nce the respondent No.1 could demonstrate the strong prima facie case and also t he irreparable loss and injury to be caused in the event the injunction order is not passed and also could demonstrate that balance of convenience is in favour of granting of an order of injunction, the learned court below has rightly passe d the order of status quo. It is further submitted that the learned court below has passed the order of status quo till 12th October 2010 only and therefore, by maintaining the order of status quo the learned court below may be directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit. It appears from the NIT in question that the same was issued for awardin g transportation contract to the successful bidder initially for a period of six months, extendable for a further period of three months. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that despite such stipulation in the NIT, the Food C orporation of India would award the contract for the period of six months only o n ad-hoc basis, which would not be extended. It appears from the order dated 18th September 2010 passed by the learne d court below that the order of injunction has been granted solely on the basis that the present respondent No.1, who was the petitioner before the learned cour t below, would suffer great hardship if the tender is accepted on regular basis for a period of two months. The NIT dated 19th August 2010, as noticed above, is for awarding the contract for a period of six months. Learned senior counsel fo r the petitioners also stated that the period of contract would be 6(six) months only. That being the position, the very basis on which the order of injunction was passed by the learned court below does not exist. The learned court below, while observing that there is a strong prima facie case as well as the balance o f convenience in favour of the present respondent No.1, has not given any reason therefor, and has passed the order in a mechanical way. That being the position, the order of status quo directed to be maintain ed by the order dated 18th September 2010 is set aside. The learned first appell ate court is directed to hear and decide the Misc Appeal No.20/2010 in accordanc e with law. The petitioners as well as the respondent No.1 are directed to appea r before the learned Addl District Judge, Kamrup on 12th October 2010 i.e. the d ate fixed, when the present petitioners shall file their show cause. The learned court below, thereafter, shall proceed to hear and decide the appeal after serv ice of notice on other respondents. An effort shall necessarily be made to dispo se of the said appeal within a period of 45 days from 12th October 2010. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.