1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.207 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6802 OF 2009 K.M.Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd. Through its Accountant Gopichand s/o Raghnathrprasad Agarwal, Mumbai - APPELLANT VERSUS Priyadarshini Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Tondar, Tq. Udgir District Latur and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh,Advocate for Appellant; Mr.PMShah, Sr.Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.RN Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.3; Mr.RP Phatke AGP for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 11th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur being Special Civil Suit No.13/2009 for perpetual 2 injunction. The defendant no.3 filed an application raising an issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Trial Court passed an order dated 4.9.2009 below Exhibit-25 in Special Civil Suit No.13/2009, dismissing the suit with costs, observing that the suit was not maintainable for want of compliance of provisions of Sections 163 and 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 3) Against the said order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant/petitioner preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6802 of 2009, which came to be admitted by the learned Single Judge of this court on 14/10/2009. However, the petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief came to be rejected by a reasoned order. Against the refusal of grant of interim relief, this LPA is preferred by the appellant. 4) The learned Counsel Shri Deshmukh for the appellant submits that if the Civil Court was of the opinion that the suit was not maintainable for want of compliance of provisions of Sections 163 and 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, then the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint or returned the plaint to the plaintiff and ought not to have dismissed the suit. Therefore, according to the learned 3 Counsel, the impugned order has caused prejudice to the appellant and the same is erroneous in nature and against the provisions of law. By way of interim relief, the Counsel submits that the respondents be restrained from selling the sugar bags, against which the appellant had advanced loan amounting to Rs.2,60,00,000/-( Rupees two crores and sixty lakhs) to the Respondent no.2, till the petition, admitted by the learned Single Judge, is heard finally. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- was already refunded to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant’s claim was restricted to the damages, as claimed in the notice by the appellant. On merits, it is submitted that the appellant is not entitled to relief of grant of injunction as prayed as granting such relief would be against the interest of the respondents and it would not equitable too. In view of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, according to the Counsel, the appellant is entitled to claim damages as the appellant is raising monetary claim. 6) We have perused the orders passed by the Civil Court and the learned Single Judge of this 4 Court and other relevant documents placed on record. We have also gone through the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 7) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in refusing the interim relief as prayed by the appellant/petitioner. The hearing of the petition is already expedited. In the trial Court, the appellant sought interim relief which is in the nature of injunction, restraining the respondents not to sell the sugar bags, which is an essential commodity and perishable item, the distribution of which is governed under the statutory enactments and by the Central Government. Considering all these facets of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the Letter Patent Appeal, the same stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/LPA207.09