MANAGING DIRECTOR SFC Vs. JAGMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this Civil First Misc. Appeal is order of learned Munsiff JMIC Baramulla whereby learned Munsiff in an application for grant of temporary injunction titled Jagmohan Singh and Anr. v. Managing Director SFC and Ors. has held the order dated 24-5-2008 whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo till next date of hearing, to be "intact" and "still continuing".

(2.) It appears that the Respondents herein filed a Civil Suit in the court of learned Munsiff JMIC Baramulla on 24-5-2008 pleading therein that the Respondents were allottees of a contract for extraction, conversion and transportation of timber to the extent of 1.90 lakh CFTs from compartment No. 8 Forest Division, Baramulla to the Appellants' depot at Shalteng, Srinagar. The contract was claimed to have been allotted vide order 1832-41/SFC/Bla dated 7.3.2007. The Respondents stated to have made huge investments in connection with the execution of the contract. The Respondents admittedly were not able to execute the allotted work within the time frame agreed upon between the parties. The delay was attributed to topography of the forest area, sluggish handling of the matters connected with the execution of contract by the Appellants and other administrative delays. The Respondents complained that the Appellants were going to float fresh tenders inviting fresh offers for the allotment of the work already allotted in their favour. The Respondents alongside the suit filed an application for ad interim injunction. The learned trial judge on 24 May 2008 ordered status quo in the matter. The minutes of proceedings before the trial court, a certified copy whereof is placed on the file, reveals that the order of status quo was to operate till next date of hearing i.e. 10.6.2008. On 10 June 2008 learned presiding officer was not available and the matter was adjourned till 25 June 2008. On the said date the ad interim direction was extended to next date of hearing i.e. 12.7.2008. On 12.7.2008 and on four successive hearings the presiding officer was not available and no effective orders were passed. On 22nd. October 2008, the matter came up and was adjourned by the presiding officer to 31st October 2008, ad interim injunction however was not extended on any of the subsequent hearings. The Respondents thereafter on 12.6.2009 filed an application for extension in the ad interim order dated 24 May 2008. The case set up by the Respondents was that the status quo order granted on 24.5.2008 till next date of hearing and extended on 25.6.2008 had not been extended. The Respondents made a specific prayer for extending the ad interim order dated 24.5.2008. The learned trial judge on 12.6.2009 itself made following order on the top of the application:

(3.) The Appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 12.6.2009 on the ground that the order has been passed at their back and without affording the Appellants an opportunity to file the objections to the application. It is insisted that the order dated 24.5.2008 had come to an end due to efflux of time and the court having not extended the order after 10.6.2008 is deemed to have found no ground for extending the order. It is pleaded that the order impugned in the appeal on the face of it is bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is averred that once the Appellants had caused their appearance before the trial court and opted to contest the suit as also application, it was not proper for learned trial judge to entertain an application and grant an exparte order. It is averred that the opinion expressed by the learned trial judge in the order impugned that the status quo order was "intact" was factually incorrect and not borne out from the record of the proceedings. The Appellants plead that the Respondents having failed to fulfill their contractual obligations cannot be allowed to put the corporation work on hold and disenable the Appellant corporation from fulfilling its commitments to the general public.