- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 25.2.1989. whereby the ad interm injunction granted by the Trial Court vide order date 17.12.1988, was set aside.
(2.) The plaintiff M/s Rajdoot Guest House, filed the suit for the grant of the mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release 300 cases of country liquor imported against permit No. 24/88-89 dated 12.9.1988, valid up to 30.9.1988, by the plaintiff against valid transport pass from M/s Patiala Distillers and Manufactures, Pvt. Ltd, Maim District Patiala, which has been illegally and without jurisdiction apprehended by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, from truck No. PUV-5245 on its way from Patiala to Dharampur. Along with the suit, he also filed an application for the grant of the interim mandatory injunction, which was granted by the trial Court with following observations:- "In view of what has been discussed above, I consider that it is a fit case where the applicant is entitled to the interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents to release 300 cases of country liquor containing consignment 1350 proof litres of country liquor which was imported against permit No. 24/88-89 dated 12.9.1988. I, therefore, order that the respondents be directed to release 300 cases of country liquor containing consignment of 1350 proof litres country liquor which was imported against permit No. 24/88-89 dated 12-9-1988. The price of the 300 cases of country liquor is about Rs. 60,000/-. It is further ordered that the applicant should furnish a security and undertaking that the applicant would pay Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent if ultimately the suit of the plaintiff-applicant fails in the Civil Court. The applicant is directed to furnish the undertaking before 20.12.1988. If the applicant furnishes an undertaking before 21.12.1988 in this Court, the respondents are directed to release the consignment on 21.12.1988. However, this order of mine will have no effect on the merits of the suit." In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the said order of the trial Court primarily on the ground that the plaintiff did not seem to have a prima facie case which implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining a relief on the material placed before the Court at that stage. According to the learned Additional District Judge, in the present case, the plaintiff had failed to show as to why he had adopted the Patiala-Sirhind Khanna route and why they were unloading the cartons at village Lalheri near Khanna when the direct route, i.e, Patiala-Rajpura Chandigarh road was open to heavy traffic on that day and that was the direct route to reach the destination.
(3.) At the time of the motion hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that no criminal case had been registered against it under the Punjab Excise Act or under any other statute, That being so, the defendants were not entitled to retain the goods with them as the same could not be the case property of any case registered against it. According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was perfectly valid, but the same has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. Moreover, the interest of the State were amply safeguarded by the trial Court by imposing the conditions on the plaintiff that he will furnish security and undertaking that he will pay Rs. 80,000/- to the respondents, if ultimately, his suit fails in the Civil Court.;