UNION OF INDIA Vs. MESSRS YASH PAUL CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1328 to 1332 of 1989.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the Union of India primarily for a direction to the trial Judge to dispose of the application filed by it for vacation of the stay order. The learned trial Judge had issued directions that the bank guarantee furnished by the contractor (Here in after referred to as the respondent) be not encashed. At the argument stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner enlarged the scope of the prayer made in the petition that all the orders passed by the trial Judge are illegal, inter alia, for the following reasons : (1) that the trial Court could not issue any direction that the Union of India could not encash the bank guarantee; (2) that the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and (3) that the provisions of Order 39, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. I am afraid these contentions are not available at this stage. The trial Judge is seized of the matter. He should have disposed of the objections filed by the Union of India. No interference on a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. The trial Judge will dispose of the application filed by the Union of India for vacation of the interim stay order and will also deal with the submissions about the maintainable of the suit and the resultant effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 39, rule 3 of the Code. The petitioner has acted in haste to approach this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice that the petition filed by the petitioner for vacation of the stay order is fixed for June 9, 1989. I hope the trial Judge on that date will dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for vacation of the stay order and will deal with the objections raised by the petitioner. The trial Judge will dispose of the application on that date and will not adjourn the case to any other date.

(3.) Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. C.R. Nos. 1329 to 1332 of 1989 are also dismissed.