S.K. Keshote, J. - (1.) BOTH these revision petitions are directed by the petitioners against the order of the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Application No. 89/94 and the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE facts of the case and the grounds to challenge this order are taken from S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 798/2000. The plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur along with application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC r/w Section 151, CPC on3.7.1992. It is averred in the suit that on 22.3.1991 plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 has got an FDR for the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - from Indian Bank, Bharatpur branch in favour of the Executive Engineer, PWD Division National High Way No. 4, Jaipur as he was intended to participate in the bid which was to be held at Jaipur. He has not participated in the bid. He lost the FDR as what is alleged. On maturity of the FDR on 25.3.1992 he had asked the Bank authorities to give him the money, but the payment has not been made by the Bank. It is stated that there is nothing outstanding with the PWD and the Bank and both the Bank and PWD are not justified to withhold the FDR. In the suit it is prayed that the FDR be not allowed to be encashed by any other person and FDR may be allowed, to be encashed by the plaintiff petitioner.
(3.) THE arguments on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC were heard and this application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court under its order dated 8.9.1994. The plaintiff non -petitioner filed an application under Section 151 on 5.5.2000 praying therein for grant of temporary injunction i.e. to direct the respondents to make the payment of the FDR. This application was contested by the petitioner. It is stated in the reply to the application filed by the petitioner that the firm consisting of plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1, petitioner Ranjit Singh, Harnam Singh and Maharaj Singh and the FDR in dispute was placed with the non -petitioner No. 3 for this firm as security. It is stated that he obtained the contract for collecting the toll tax on the Kanota Bridge of Dhund River for a period of one year from 6.4.1991 to 5.4.1992. The amount of the FDR has been adjusted in connection with the amount of contract. The contract was given on 21.3.1991 and the FDR was prepared on 22.3.1991. Learned Trial Court under the impugned order allowed that application and directed the respondent non -petitioner No. 3 to make the payment of that FDR to the non -petitioner No. 1. Hence this revision petition.;