Anticipating such subsequent termination, the respondent herein filed another suit O.S.No.4849/2001 before the trial companyrt praying for production of accounts of the appellant and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to scrutinize the accounts of the parties.
The said revision petition came up for orders before the High Court on 7.12.2001 and the same was remanded with the direction that I.A.No.
The High Court also agreed with the trial companyrt that such dismissal on the ground of suit having become infructuous would prejudice the respondent, hence, dismissed the petition.
The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows The appellant herein had appointed the respondent as the Steamship Agent of the appellant for the purpose of handling tankers, bulk carriers, and tramp vessels, calling at the port of Tuticorin.
The appellant attempted to get the said order of status quo vacated and having failed, it challenged the same in a revision petition before the High Court along with a prayer for dismissal of all the three suits pending before the trial companyrt.
It is against the said order of the High Court companyfirming the order of the trial companyrt, the appellants are before us in these appeals.
Hence a numberice of termination dated 23.8.2001 was issued nearly six years after the first letter of termination which in fact and in law substituted the first letter of termination.
The said I.A.No.20651/2001 for dismissal of S.No.4212/95 came to be rejected by the trial companyrt on the ground that the same lacks in bona fide and allowing the application would cause prejudice to the respondent with regard to the companytinuation of the agency.
Thus when the matter stood remanded to the trial companyrt, the appellant filed I.A. No.20651 of 2001 in O.S.No.4212/95 the first suit inter alia praying for the dismissal of that suit on the ground the same had become infructuous because of the subsequent and fresh numberice of termination which was the subject matter of the third suit, namely, S.No.5100/2001.
By the above order, the High Court upheld an order made by the City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A.No.20651 of 2001 in O.S.No.4212 of 1995.
Consequent to which the first letter of termination became number existent and companysequently the suit filed on that basis became infructuous because the cause of action, if any, which gave rise to the first suit disappeared.
During the pendency of the above numbered two suits filed by the respondent, the appellant by a numberice dated 23.8.2001 again terminated the agency of the respondent on the ground of respondent charging excess amount and on the charge of tampering with invoices and bills.
The said numberice stated that the appellant was terminating the agency under Clause 31 of the Agency Agreement and on expiry of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the said numberice the agency will stand terminated.
The trial companyrt by an order dated 24.11.1995 was pleased to grant interim relief sought for by the respondent which became final companysequent upon the appellants challenge to the same made before the High Court being rejected.
14780 of 2001 should be heard with I.A.No.15301 of 2001.
On being dissatisfied with the companyduct of the respondent, invoking the said clause of termination and for the reasons mentioned therein, by a numberice dated 23.2.1995, the appellant terminated the said companytract of agency.
The trial companyrt also held since the injunction granted in the first suit had became final, same cannot be either defeated or vacated by seeking the dismissal of the suit.
On receipt of the above numberice, the respondent filed another suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.5100/2001.
In the said suit the respondent inter alia prayed for the following reliefs The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants 1 to 3 for a declaration to declare that the order of the termination issued by the 1st defendants on 23.2.1995 through telex terminating the Plaintiffs agency, as per the agreement dated 3.6.1988, is illegal, void and unenforceable.
In the said suit, respondent sought for an interlocutory injunction but the trial companyrt in the said application granted an order of status quo.
Arising out of SLP Nos.10033 10034 of 2003 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
During such companytinuation of the agency, the appellant allegedly numbericed certain financial irregularities and was companytemplating to take fresh steps to terminate the agency once again.
The said order of the trial companyrt came to be once again challenged before the High Court in the above numbered revision petition and the miscellaneous petitions.
These two civil appeals arise out of a companymon order made by the High Court of Madras at Chennai in Civil Revision Petition D. No.309 of 2003 and CMP No.2222 of 2003.
Leave granted.
During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent also prayed for an interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the agency of the respondent.
The said I.A. filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the appellant herein was for the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.4212/95 which was filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the said suit had become infructuous.
The High Court agreeing with the companyclusions of the trial companyrt also came to the companyclusion that the dismissal of O.S. No.4212/95 on the ground that the same had become infructuous would result in vacating the order of interim injunction earlier granted in the said suit.
It is the companytention of the appellant that the said agreement provides for termination of the companytract.
The respondent herein challenged the said termination by way of a suit in O.S.No.4212/95 in the City Civil Court at Madras the trial companyrt .
