S.S.BYAS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal Under Order 43 of Rule 1(R) of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against an order of pendente -lite injunction dated October 27, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar restraining the appellants from recovering any amount from and auctioning their any property.
(2.) THE material facts may be noticed in brief. The plaintiffs who are respondents before me in this appeal are the partners of M/s. Bhimsen and party who were granted licence on exclusive privilege basis for the retail sale of I.M.F.L. and Country Liquor for Suratgarh, Padampur, Raisinghnagar group of shops on account of the licences failing to carry out obligations under the of licence, the licence was cancelled on 13.8.1988 by the defendant -appellant District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar. At the time of the cancellation of licence, excise revenue amounting to Rs. 67,64,490.76 P. was found outstanding against the licencees. The District Excise Officer initiated the recovery proceedings against the licences including the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants in the court of the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar challenging the action of recovery initiated against them by the District Excise Officer. They also applied for pendente -lite injunction against the defendants. Meanwhile Bhimsen one of the licencees also challenged the action of the appellants in recoving the outstanding amount from him way of a writ petition at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court at Jaipur passed an order on 7.10.1988 that the action of the property of Bhimsen which was taken under attachment by the appellants would not be auotioned if Bhimsen or any other licencees makes the payment of a sum of Rs. 24,70,000/ - to the appellants. Bhimsen went in special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 14.10.1988 that the auction of the property of Bhimsen will not be held provided be furnishes bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 28 Lakhs. It was further ordered that in the event of default, it will be open to the parties (defendants) to proceed with the auction. The learned Additional District Judge issued notice of the plaintiffes application relating to pendente lite injunction. The application was contested tooth and nail by the defendants. The learned Judge thereafter heard the parties and by his impugned order dated 27.10.1988 granted the pendente -lite injunction as mentioned at the very outset. The reasons which prevailed over the Additional District Judge are that one of the partners had already furnished the bank guarantee of Rs. 28 lakhs. As such nothing thereafter remains due against any of the partners. Some of the partners had filed writ petitions at the principal seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and an order to maintain status -quo was passed therein. The learned Additional District Judge held that in view of these circumstances, it was a fit case where pendente -lite injunction should be issued. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 27.10.1988, the defendants who are the State of Rajasthan and the District Excise Officer have come up in appeal.
(3.) I have heard Mr. R.C. Maheshwari -learned Counsel for the defendants -appellants and Mr. M.G. Bhandari and Mr. N.M. Lodha -learned Counsel for the plaintiffs -respondents. I have also gone through the case file carefully.;