CRP 106/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (ORAL) Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The case is taken up for final disposal considering the limited prayer m ade in the revision petition. 3. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Title Suit No. 39/10 on the file of the learned Munsiff No.1, Sivasagar whereby and whereunder the opposite party No.1 as plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the following re liefs,- a) Declaring the actions of the defendants illegally and criminally trying to m ake the price bid of the defendant No. 3 as L-1 instead of the plaintiffs price bid which was found L-1 openly on 3.6.10 when the price bids were opened as ille gal and void in law; b) Of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from processi ng further with the subject tender; c) Declaring that the plaintiff being the L-1 is legally entitled to get the wor k order; d) Costs of the suit alongwith such other relief(s) may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff to which he is found legally entitled to, for the ends of justice. 4. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of t he Civil Procedure CPC (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) alongwith section 15 1 CPC was filed being registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 138/10 which came up for consideration on 08.07.2010 before the learned trial Court whereby the learned t rial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the p rocess of tender being No.GAIL/LA/C&P/74/3300034926/CIVIL 09-10 dated 30.01.2010 till filing of the show cause reply by the opposite party directing to issue no tice to the opposite parties fixing 20.07.2010 for filing of show cause reply. O n 20.07.2010, the counsel representing the petitioners herein sought an adjournm ent praying for time to file show cause reply whereas the learned counsel appear ing for the plaintiff petitioner sought for an order extending the status quo or der dated 08.07.2010 by a petition No.1441/10. The learned trial Court passed an order fixing 2.08.2010 for show cause reply with further order that the petitio n No. 1441/10 would be considered on the day of filing of show cause reply. On 1 2.08.2010, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties extended the order of status quo until further order fixing 25.08.2010. On 25.08.2010, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff petitioner filed a petition being petition No. 1818/ 10 whereof a copy was directed to be furnished to the opposite party. An adjourn ment petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for reply, which was allowe d fixing 15.09.2010 for filing objection and show case reply. On 15.09.2010, th e petitioner defendants filed the show cause reply and the court passed an order fixing 4.10.2010 for disposal of petition No. 1818/10 as well as for filing obj ection on petition No. 1818/10. Thereafter, the order sheets annexed with the pe tition would reveal that the learned trial Court did not take up the matter of t he show cause reply filed on 15.09.2010 against the status quo order dated 08.07 .2010 either on the ground of adjournment or due to shortage of time of the cour ts hour till 04.04.2011 and hence, this petition for a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the injunction petition being Misc. (J) Case No. 138/1 0 arising out of TS No. 39/10. 5. The order sheet as annexed with the petition would reveal that the learn ed trial Court on 08.07.2010 passed an order directing the parties to maintain s tatus quo till filing of the show cause reply, but what weighed the leaned trial Court’s finding that it is a fit case to order for maintenance of status quo to save the subject matter of the suit is not very clear which would go against the basic ingredients of the Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Moreover, whe n there is status quo order passed without prior notice then there is an additio nal requirement which is required to be observed, namely, recording the reasons which convinced the court to grant status quo order without prior notice and whi ch led the court to the belief that the time which would be consumed in issuing prior notice would frustrate the object of granting status quo order which was s ubsequently maintained to be ordered until further order vide order dated 12.08. 2010. 6. A reading of the show cause reply dated 15.09.2010 would reveal that the relief as sought for in the suit is no longer exists since the tender committee on 06.07.2010 recommended to cancel the tender floated on 30.01.2010 and accord ingly, cancelled the tender also returned the earnest money deposit to the plain tiff as well as all bidders and decided to invite fresh tenders in which the pla intiff opposite parties including the other bidders shall have the opportunity t o participate in the new tenders. 7. Moreover, the show cause reply was filed on 15.09.2010 and the learned t rial Court ought to have taken up the matter as required under Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the CPC which has not been adhered to in the instant case. 8. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the Misc. (J) Case No. 138/2010 arising ou t of TS No. 39 of 2010 within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a ce rtified copy of this order in accordance with law, without being influenced by t he observation made in the preceding paragraphs.