CR No.1042 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1042 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: March 22, 2011. Mukesh Kumar Saini. .. Petitioner VERSUS Confed District Officer, Gurgaon and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner claims that he is in the business of transport running his transport Company under the name and style of M/s Shiv Transport Company, Bahadurgarh, District . . . 1 CR No.1042 of 2011 (O&M) Jhajjar, having number of vehicles for picking up the goods and dropping them at various destinations. The plaintiff-petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted contract to carry the goods for defendants-respondents for the financial years 2008 to 2011. The security amount has already been deposited by the plaintiff- petitioner. The plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from giving the contract to some other person. The Courts below have refused to grant the interim injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Gurgaon, indicates that the interim injunction has been refused to the plaintiff-petitioner relying upon a letter dated 23.10.2010, presuming the said letter to be an order of termination of the contract of the plaintiff-petitioner. A copy of the letter has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. A perusal of the letter dated 23.10.2010, indicates that it is not a termination order but it is in the nature of a notice to perform the part of the agreement by the plaintiff-petitioner. The lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case holding that the appellate Court has got very limited jurisdiction to interfere in an order passed by the trial Court regarding interim injunctions. There is a patent illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. The Courts below have without waiting for the written statement of the defendants-respondents abruptly rejected the interim injunction application. The application could have been decided after enabling . . . 2 CR No.1042 of 2011 (O&M) the defendants-respondents to file a detailed written statement by giving a short adjournment on 30.10.2010. The procedure adopted by the Courts below is patently not in consonance with the rules of natural justice. The interim injunction has been declined on the basis of wrong interpretation of a document. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents in context to the pleas taken up by the plaintiff-petitioner in his plaint. Though the interference is warranted for the irregularity committed by the Courts below but in view of the fact that the contract of the plaintiff-petitioner is to expire on 31.03.2011, in the interest of justice, it is not deemed appropriate to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. The revision petition is dismissed on that ground. However, this order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner to claim damages for breach of contract. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 22, 2011. rka . . . 3