- (1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 1.10.2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Ranchi, in a temporary injunction matter arising out of Title Suit No. 218 of 2001 pending in that Court.
(2.) IT appears that the appellant has filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 218 of 2001 for specific performance of a so -called contract with respect to a building called as Atma Ram Bhawan situated in the Main Road. Ranchi, for opening of a Computerised Reservation Centre of the South Eastern Railway. The appellant mainly relied upon the "minutes of the negotiations" stated to have been held between some officials of the South Eastern Railway and the appellant. These minutes appear to have been signed by those persons on 11.11.1999. It also appears that having entertained some apprehensions earlier also in this matter, the appellant had a writ application in this Court, being CWJC No. 3217 of 2000 (R), but a learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ application vide his order dated 19.9.2000, based on the observations and his finding that since the issues involved in the writ application were purely contractual in nature, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court could not be permitted to be invoked. However, liberty was given to the appellant to file a representation. The representation having been filed has, however, been rejected. It appears that the respondents, however, did not take the premises of the appellant -plaintiff on rent and opted for some other building. The appellant - plaintiff claims that the respondents -defendants, based on the aforesaid "negotiations" held between the parties and on the basis of other material, were bound under law to take the building of the appellant on rent, specially in view of the fact that the appellant had altered its position and based on the assurance of the respondents has spent huge amount of money in carrying out modifications and improvements of the premises in question, for use as a Computerised Reservation Office. According to the appellant, therefore, the respondents being bound should not be permitted to back out from their promise and to take another building on rent. The appellant also prayed for grant of temporary injunction, inter alia, restraining the respondents from opening and inaugurating the Computerised Reservation Office elsewhere in any other building.
(3.) THE learned trial Court by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction; hence the present appeal.;