Heard Sri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.
This revision has been filed challenging the order of the trial court dated 29th April, 2010 passed in Original Suit No. 641 of 2010. The order records as follows:
"Prarthana patra 7Ga maya shapath patra suna tatha patravali ka avlokan kiya. Mamala tatkalik pratit nahi hota hai avam prativadi ko sune bina antarim vyadesh nirgat kiya jana nyaysangat nahi hai. Atah prativadigan ko notice jari ho vastey apatti nistaran 7Ga dinank 12-5-10 ko pesh ho. Pairavi notice ubhay prakar se turant ki jaye."
From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the trial court did not find any good ground to grant an ex parte injunction and provided that on the injunction application, notices be issued to the defendants fixing 12th May, 2010 as the date.
The present civil revision was entertained by this Court and on 12th May, 2010 an interim order was granted. The operative portion whereof reads as follows:
"In view of the above, there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that the opposite parties shall not grant contract in favour of any other person in respect of the old power generating station nor invite any fresh tender or initiate auction proceedings in respect thereof during pendency of this revision. The revisionist is directed to approach the appropriate authorities of respondent nos.2 to 5 immediately with a copy of this order. The revisionist's case shall be reconsidered and if he is prepared to deposit the entire amount within a reasonable period i.e. one month from today, the contract which had already been given to him shall be revived and the revisionist after he deposits the amount shall be permitted to carry out the dismantling work. The operation of the order dated 16.2.2010 shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court."
According to the revisionist the entire money in terms of the order of the Court has to be deposited by the plaintiff- revisionist on 10th June, 2010 and therefore, he is entitled to dismantle the plant and machinery standing at the site in view of the interim order of this Court referred to above.
The defendants to the suit, who are respondents in the present civil revision, challenged the order passed by this Court dated 12th May, 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16708 of 2010, which was decided on 15th June, 2010 with the direction that the petitioner (defendants) must appear before the Single Judge of the High Court and to move an appropriate application for vacating the interim order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further provided that if such application is filed, the Single Judge will consider the same on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as it may be possible. A copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been produced before this Court, which is kept on record.
Accordingly, the present stay vacation application has been filed in the present civil revision and it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants- respondents that the revision itself was not maintainable, therefore, no interim order could be granted. Other facts have also been stated qua filing of the writ petition no. 3528 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 15th March, 2010 (Annexure- C.A.4 to the counter affidavit filed along with the present stay vacation application) as also to the writ petition filed before this Court being Writ Petition No. 15791 of 2010, which was got dismissed 26th March, 2010, as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition and thereafter another writ petition no. 17049 of 2010 was filed, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20th April, 2010. Filing of aforesaid three writ petitions and the orders passed therein by the Writ Court have not been disclosed in the memo of civil revision or in the stay application filed in support of the civil revision. Even otherwise, it has been pointed out that the revisionist had not complied with the terms of the contract within the specified period and therefore, the interim order granted by this Court in the present civil revision has the affect of re-writing of the terms of the contract between the parties, which is not permissible under law.
Faced with the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prabhakar Singh submits that he needs to prepare the case on the issue of maintainability of the revision and seeks some reasonable time for the purpose. He further submits that time be granted to file rejoinder affidavit disputing the correctness or otherwise of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with stay vacation application qua filing of the aforesaid three writ petitions by the revisionist earlier. He submits that he is not ready with the case today as he has been served with the copy of hte stay vacation application along with counter affidavit today in the Court.
In the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the revisionist is entitled to some reasonable time to examine the issue of maintainability of the revision as well as to file reply to the various averments, which have been made in the counter affidavit filed along with stay vacation application qua concealment of material facts but at the same time, the parties cannot be permitted to alter the facts situation which is prevailing at the site in the garb of time being prayed for and being granted.
Consequently, this Court feels that interest of substantial justice would be served by providing as follows:
The revisionist may file reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with the stay vacation application within ten days. He may also assist the Court on the issue of maintainability of the revision on the next date fixed. The civil revision be listed before appropriate Bench on 15th July, 2010.
The interim order dated 12th May,2010 earlier granted in favour of the revisionist is modified to the extent that he shall not be permitted to dismantle the plant and machinery. which is existing at the site and status quo as on date shall be maintained by the parties.
(Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date :- 30.6.2010 Sushil/-