J.V. Gupta, A.C.J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 13th June, {989, whereby the ad interim order of injunction passed by the trial Court was set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from terminating the railway out agency at Jagadhri and from causing any damage to it in any manner whatsoever. Along with the suit, it also moved an application for ad interim injunction. At the same time, the defendants also moved an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act), for referring the matter to the arbitrator under the agreement and staying the proceedings in the suit. The trial Court without deciding the said application under section 34 of the Act, granted ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and thus restrained the defendants from terminating the plaintiff's agency till further orders. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge found that neither there was any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, nor there was any balance of convenience in its favour and. therefore, it was not entitled to any ad interim injunction. The learned Additional District Judge also observed that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as it had not mentioned about the service of the notice dated 10th April, 1989 upon it of the termination of the out agency and also about the arbitration clause. Consequently. the ad interim injunction order was vacated vide order dated 13th June, 1989.
(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted that there was no termination order as such passed against the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction was maintainable. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the order was passed mala fide at the instance of defendant No. 2 Shri S.K. Jain. Vigilance Officer, Northern Railway and, therefore, the trial Court rightly granted the ad interim injunction order, but the same has been set aside arbitrarily and illegally. The learned counsel also submitted that though the Union of India was not a party to the original suit, yet later on, application for amendment was filed and, therefore, this was no ground to hold that the' suit as such was not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, it has been wrongly observed that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands. Since there was no order of termination of agency, the same was not mentioned in the plaint.;