JAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Rohtak, dated June 29, 1988, whereby the ad interim order of stay granted by the Trial Court was vacated and at the same time, the appeal was assigned to the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, for disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner contractor had moved an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for referring the matter to the arbitrator. Along with the said application, he also moved an application, he moved an application for the ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. On the said application, the Trial Court passed ex parte stay order restraining the respondents from allotting the work to any other person except the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Haryana instead of moving the Trial Court for setting aside the ex parte order of injunction filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak, where by the said ex parte order passed by the Trial Court was set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Trial Court was not appealable as such it was only an interim one and, therefore, the appeal should have been dismissed as not maintainable. In any case, argued the learned counsel, there was no occasion for the District Judge to assign the appeal to the Additional District Judge for disposal when he had already vacated the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court.