Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908), O. XXX, r. 3-Service of summons-Suit for perpetual injunction to restrain defendant mills from realising amount covered by Bank guarantee furnished by plaintiff's to defendants as coverage for appointment as agents of defendant mills for sale of its manufactured goods-Order XXX, C. P. C., held, does not apply to such cases. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The appellant-firm filed a suit-in the civil Court for a perpetual injunction to restrain respondent Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited from realising the amount covered by the Bank guarantee which the appellant had furnished to the Mill in the sum of Rs. 5,02,000 as coverage for its appointment as an agent of the Mill for sale of its manufactured cloth. The suit was necessitated because the Mill had initiated proceedings against the appellant for enforcing the Bank guarantee which, according to the appellant's case, could not be done without going into the accounts between the parties. . Alongside the suit, a prayer for temporary injunction was made, which was granted by the trial Court on the 26th of November 1969, on the condition that the appellant furnished a fresh Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000. The need for a fresh guarantee arose because the guarantee already furnished by the appellant was to expire on the 7th of December 1969. Against the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction on the condition aforesaid, the respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Lyallpur, which was heard and decided ex parte against the appellant and the order of the trial Judge was set aside. The appellant went in revision to the High Court against the appellate order of the District Judge, which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave of this Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held, inter alia, that the appellant should have approached the lower appellate Court under Order XLI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rehearing the appeal which was disposed of ex parte. The appellant had his remedy under Order XLI and it was appropriate that he should have first sought this remedy before approaching the High Court under…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492