NARINDER KUMAR Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated 30th September, 1989, passed by Senior Sub Judge, Ambala, declining to grant ad interim relief in an application filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. An appeal against the aforesaid order was also filed before the District Judge which is stated to be pending. Since the matter has been taken up in the revision petition, for all practical purposes this order will dispose of the appeal pending before the District Judge, although it is stated that the appeal would be withdrawn.

(2.) An agreement was entered into between Narinder Kumar plaintiff-petitioner and the Northern Railways on 18th September, 1987 allowing the petitioner to carry out the business of out agency of Northern Railways at Yamuna Nagar. Instead of opening the out agency at Yamuna Nagar, the petitioner opened such an agency at Jagadhri. One Saral Kumar was already working in another out agency at Jagadhri. He challenged the opening of the out agency by the petitioner at Jagadhri and the matter came up before the High Court in Civil Revision No. 1655 of 1988, decided by I.S. Tiwana, J. on 28th July, 1988. It was observed that the contract of the present petitioner did not debar him from working Out Agency at Jagadhri. Subsequently the Railway Authorities, as per terms of the agreement terminated the same by giving three months' notice on 19th August, 1988. This was challenged by Narinder Kumar, the present petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 10167 of 1988, which was finally decided on 2nd March, 1989. It may be stated that during pendency of this revision petition Narinder Kumar petitioner was allowed to run the Out Agency at Yamuna Nagar. In the order passed in the writ petition reference was made to the order of I.S. Tiwana, J. and it was observed that the said order was not binding on the Railways. Since there was Arbitration Clause in the agreement, it was observed while dismissing the writ petition that the petitioner could approach the civil Court for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. Thus the present application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by Narinder Kumar against the Railways. Miscellaneous Application was filed for the grant of interim order so that he could continue running the Out Agency at Jagadhri. The trial Court while disposing of the application finally declined the prayer by the impugned order.

(3.) At the outset it may be stated that the matter of grant of interim injunction is in the discretion of the trial Court and unless it is shown that this discretion was exercised arbitrarily or on principles not recognised judicially, the higher Courts would be reluctant to interfere with such discretion. A perusal of the agreement entered into between the parties shows that the petitioner was allowed to run the Out Agency at Yamuna Nagar. This fact is not otherwise disputed. No importance could be attached to the observations of I.S. Tiwana, J. in the revision petition referred to above where the Railways were not a party. Such observations are not binding on the Railways who was not a party in the said suit. This was also noticed by the Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner as referred to above. Opening of the Out Agency at Jagadhri by the petitioner was thus in clear violation of the terms of the agreement. That being the position it cannot be said that there was any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. The observations of the trial Court in this respect were correctly made.