RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Judge Udaipur dt. 5.6.93 affirming the order of rejection of application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. passed by the Learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Udaipur City (North), Udaipur dt. 17.5.93.
(2.) THE brief facts which led to this revision may be stated that the petitioner was registered as 'A' class contractor, the defendant issued an order on i. 12.92 that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,78,591/ - which were claimed as damages for breach of agreement else he will be blacklisted and may not be allowed to participate in future tenders. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from giving effect to that order and also prayed for temporary injunction that on the basis of said demand, the petitioner may not be blacklisted by the defendants and he be not further precluded from participated in future contracts. Principal contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff before the trial court was that alleged demand of Rs. 3,78,591/ - is subject to an interim order passed by the Rajasthan High Court and respondents are not entitled to recover the said demand. It was further case of the plaintiff that he cannot be blacklisted without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to show cause against the alleged reason for blacklisting him. According to him to notice prior to blacklisting the petitioner was served on him.
(3.) IN the first instance trial court issued temporary injunction restraining the defendants from blacklisting the petitioner on 15.12.92. Inspite of that order, an order of blacklisting the petitioner was passed on 23rd Jan. 1993. Application Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was moved by the petitioner, which was registered as Misc. case No. 35/93, for taking contempt proceedings against erring defendants. Thereafter the order dt. 23rd Jan. 1993 was kept in abayance by the defendants.;