INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. MERTINEZ ENGINEERING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the first appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that respondent-company was maintaining a current account with the petitioner-bank, in its branch office situated at The Mall, Ludhiana. Vide its letter dated 4. 3. 1991, the bank intimated to the company their intention to close the company's current account. Letter closing the account of the company was challenged by the company by filing a civil suit on 10. 4. 1991, wherein declaration was sought for declaring letter dated 4. 3. 1991, sent by the bank to the company, to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and as a consequential relief, the company prayed for a decree for mandatory, injunction, directing the bank for operation of the current account. Along with the suit, an application was made for grant of injunction in mandatory form for a direction to the bank to allow the company to operate on the current account during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) THE suit as well as the application were contested by the bank on the ground that there is no legal obligation for the bank to continue the account of the company. According to the bank, relationship between the bank and company was purely of debtor and creditor, which relationship could be terminated at any time. Further, the case was that company was causing harassment to the officials of the bank. Between two of them, there bad been exchange of large number of letters. Repeated complaints were being made without any basis against the working of the bank and, there fore, the bank decided to close the account. With regard to ad-interim injunction application, it was stated that there are no exceptional circum stances which would justify the grant of injunction in mandatory form. On consideration of pleadings as well as material brought on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal by the company, order of the trial Court was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the bank was directed to allow the company to operate its current account. This order is now being impugned by the bank in the present revision petition.