Yamin, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 27.1.2001 by which he allowed the appeal of the respondent and ordered that Smt. Chandra Kanta Purohit may submit personal bond of Rs. five lacs together with two solvent sureties of Rs. five lacs each and then delivery letter shall be issued by M/s. Samrat Shipping & Transport System and Smt. Chandra Kanta shall pay the due custom duty and then her goods would be delivered to her.
2. Briefly slated, Smt. Chandra Kanta filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the effect that she was residing in Sharjah with her husband Dr. G.L. Purohit. Earlier Dr. G.L. Purohit was an employee of Government of Rajasthan and had resigned in the year 1978. He first went to Iran and worked there upto 1984 and then shifted to United Arab Amiral and opened Purohit Poly Clinic at Sharjah. It was in the year 1999 that he decided to settle down back in India. Smt. Chandra Kanta booked her house hold goods through UI Usud Cargo Private Limited on 17.10.1999 after giving the required freight etc. in the currency of that country which was equivalent to about Rs. 71,500/-. The road transport and the insurance premium were included therein. She handed over all the relevant papers to the company. She was informed that she would get her luggage in safe condition from petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. She came from Sharjah to India on 26.10.1999 and was informed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 by telegram that her goods shall reach at Nahab Sewa Port. Then they asked her to give invoice and insurance policy. She informed that the documents were with shipping agent. She went on enquiring time and again about the delivery of the goods but was never replied. She received a letter from M/s. Samral Shipping & Transport System on 7.2.2000 which was replied by E-mail. Thereupon, the Shipping Company admitting its mistake wanted to know the details of the goods booked which were supplied. She was informed on 26.4.2000 that her house hold goods reached Jaipur. She applied to take delivery but a demand of Rs. 3,36,897/- was made while she had not made any default and whatever default was made, it was made by defendants. She further pleaded that her luggage was illegally detained at the port and she had undergone a lot of inconvenience and loss. Then she was informed on 1.9.2000 that her goods would be auctioned. She filed a writ petitionagainst that notice in which stay order was granted for two weeks and ultimately she was directed to file a suit which she did. She has prayed in the suit that declaration be made that the demand made by letters dated 4.5.2000 and 1.9.2000 was illegal and injunction be ordered to the effect lhat her goods may not he sold and the same be given to her after obtaining bonds etc. So many objections were raised in the written statement on behalf of Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation including the point of jurisdiction and mainlainability of the suit. It was also pleaded that the notice issued by the Customs Department can be appealed under the Customs Act and that Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation was not given any amount nor the luggage was booked with it. However, it was admitted that M/s. Samral Shipping & Transport System sent the luggage on 9.3.2000 which reached Jaipur on 15.3.2000 and the petitioner-defendant Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation was simply a custodian. It was further pleaded that no clearance was obtained from the Customs Department and that a sum of Rs. 1,17.200A was due against the plaintiff which may be paid and then the delivery of the goods can be made. She was informed that the demand of the dues made by the petitioner was according to law.
3. An application for temporary injunction was also filed which was dismissed by order dated 11.10.2000 by the trial court against which an appeal was filed. In the appeal, the above relief as stated by me in paragraph No. 1 has been granted by the learned Additional District Judge.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent Smt. Chandra Kanta.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order which has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction. He suggested that the trial court may be directed lo decide the suit on priority basis in the facts and circumstances of this case as the goods are lying with the petitioner who is simply a custodian. He submitted that the demurrage was due against Smt. Chandra Kanta and is increasing day by day and unless the demurrage is paid, the goods cannot be given to Smt. Chandra Kanta. It has been submitted that there was no previly of contract between the parties and the amount paid to UI Usud Cargo meant that there was a contract between the Cargo Company and respondent Smt. Chandra Kanta. It has been submitted that the same relief which is claimed by way of suit cannot be claimed by way of temporary injunction and the learned Additional District Judge without holding that the order of the learned trial court was perverse granted the relief to deliver the goods on some conditions. The petitioner is a concern of Government of Rajasthan and amount is due as custodian for keeping the goods and the petitioner is claiming its service charges. It has been submitted that when public revenue is involved, injunction should not be granted. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it were defendant Nos. 3 & 4 i.e. M/s. Samrat Shipping & Transport System and Samrat Shipping & Transport System, Jaipur who consented before the learned Appellate Judge to deliver the goods afler taking solvent surety but the petitioner never agreed to it. It has also been submitted that the learned trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and that if a notice is issued by the Customs Department, an appeal lies to the Collector (Appeals) under Section. 128 of the Customs Act. Learned counsel for the respondent conlroverted these arguments. There is no dispute about facts.
6. Chief General Manager State Bank of India & Ors. Shri Brij Mohan Shukla (1), has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument that while adjudicating on application for lemporary injunction no interim relief deciding main controversy can he granted. This citation does not apply to the facts of the present case because in lhat case the relief sought in the suit was for grant of loan. Of course, such an order could not have been passed granting temporary injunction. The case is distinguishable on facts. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Board Chaksu & Anr. (2), is also not applicable to this case as Smt. Chandra Kanta had definitely booked her house hold goods which is tying with the petitioner. A.E.N.,R.S.E.B. v. Shyam Singh & Anr. (3) has also been relied upon in which a consumer was issued demand notice for electricity dues and the consumer had filed a suit for injunction, it was held that no irreparable injury will be caused to the consumer, therefore, proper order would be to deposit amount as per demand notice, under protesl and then Electricity Board may be restrained from disconnecting the connection. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors. (4), has also been cited. This ruling does not help the petitioner at all as the learned Judge has himself taken care of the notice of the Customs Department and has ordered that the goods would be released only after payment of customs duty. I am not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the goods should any more lie with the petitioner in order to burden her more by way of demurrage etc. when the goods are lying with the petitioner which can very well be released. If the goods continue to lie with the custodian i.e. petitioner, there is every likelihood that more damage will be caused to Smt. Chandra Kanta who will suffer loss and injury which may not be compensated in terms of money. It is right that the loss which may be compensated in money may not be treated as irreparable but when there is house hold goods of Smt. Chandra Kanta lying with the petitioner who is not ready to release, it may be slated that Smt. Chandra Kanta who is attached to her house hold goods may have such injury which may be irreparable. Her case is to be seen not from monetary point of view but from the point of view of rights as held in Bhanwara Ram & Ors. v. Pritam Singh & Ors. (5).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Jaina Jewellery Company v. Shri A.K. Raha & Ors. (6), decided on 8.11.2000, in which amount of custom was due against the petitioner and this Court ordered to release the goods on production of bank guarantee. He submitted that the learned Appellate Judge has clearly stated in his order that the goods shall be released after payment of custom duty but on furnishing bonds etc. as stated above to satisfy Ihe claim of the petitioner.
8. I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no better order than the one passed by the learned Appellate Judge could be passed when the Customs Department itself was ready to release the goods even on furnishing security. Instead the learned Judge took care of the Customs Department and ordered that the good would be released only after clearance of Ihe dues of the Customs Department but so far as dues of the petitioner are concerned, sound and solvent sureties have been asked for and, in my view, such an order does not require any interference as pendency of the goods with the petitioner who is simply a custodian could mean irreparable loss to the plaintiff and no profit to the petitioner at all.
9. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.