INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. PARTHASARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard Both Sides. The petitioner, original defendant, has filed this civil revision application challenging the order, dated August, 16, 1993 passed by the learned District judge, Thane, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993.

(2.) THE respondent, original plaintiff, has filed a suit against the present petitioner-defendant for a declaration that the petitioner-defendant had no right to suspend the supply of petrolium products without following the due process of law and also for an appointment of an Arbitrator as per clause 69 of the dealership agreement, dated July 28, 1980. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the plaintiff has also prayed for a mandatory direction against the defendant to resume supply of the petrolium products in favour of the plaintiff. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that he was the dealer of the defendant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated July 28, 1980 and it is under the said agreement the defendant-company had agreed to supply petroiium products to the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff, since June 1, 1992 the defendant has stopped the supply of the petroiium products unauthorisedly and therefore, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 63 of 1992 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shahapur. After filing the aforesaid suit on December 28, 1992, on the same day the plaintiff filed an application, Exhibit 5, for the grant of ad-interim relief and the trial Court by its order, dated December 28, 1992, issued ad-interim injunction directing the defendant to resume the supply of the petroiium products in favour of the plaintiff and also granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from discontinuing the supply of the petroiium products. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated December 28, 1992 passed by the Civil judge, Junior Division, Sahapur. the defendant preferred an appel before the district Court at Thane being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993. The said appeal was preferred on January 2, 1993 and the defendant obtained stay of the ad-interim reliefs granted by the trial Court from the District Court on january 4, 1993. The said stay granted by the lower appellate Court was vacated on August 16, 1993 and against this order of vacating the stay, the defendant has preferred the present civil revision application.

(3.) MR. Abhyankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant contended that by an agreement, dated July 28, 1980 dealership agreement was entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff and by the said agreement the plaintiff was appointed as dealer of the defendant for the retail sale of the petroiium products. On May 31, 1992 the Mobile Laboratory of the defendant found that the motor spirit sold by the plaintiff was adulterated. Therefore, on June 1, 1992, the defendant suspended the supply of the petrolium products to the plaintiff. Thereafter on December 24, 1992 the defendant gave notice of termination to the plaintiff terminating the dealership of the plaintiff. (At this stage I may mention that Mr. Ganatra, the learned councel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has denied that the plaintiff was any time served by the said notice of termination ). Thereafter on December 28, 1992, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 63 of 1992 before the Civil Judge, junior Division, Shahapur, wherein the plaintiff sought declaration and mandatory reliefs. Mr. Abhyankar further contended that in the said suit ad interim application was made for the grant of interim relief and the trial Court by its order, dated December 28, 1992 granted relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant. The said order of interim relief granted by the trial Court was challenged by the present petitioner-defendant in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no 3 of 1993 and the lower Appellate Court granted stay of the trial Court's order dated December 28, 1992 vide its order, dated January, 4 1993 when the aforesaid appeal came up for hearing, the defendant filed an application on July 12, 1993 which is at Exhibit 21. As per the said application, the defendant relied upon in all fifteen documents iu order to support his claim in the appeal. The application filed by the defendant relying on the additional evidence Exhibit 21 was resisted by the plaintiff and the lower appellate Court after hearing both the sides rejected the said application by its order dated August 16, 1993. It is this order of rejection of Exhibit 21 and the order of vacating the grant of interim stay by the lower appellate Court is the subject matter of challenge in this revision application.