JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS Miscellaneous appeal arises out of an order dated 29-6-1984, passed by the VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, indore, in Civil Suit No. 29-A of 1984, thereby confirming the ex-parte injunction granted on 21-5-1984 and allowing the application for an ad interim injunction. ( 2. ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides it is necessary to refer to the facts of the suit, which is for a declaratory decree seeking a declaration to the effect that the draw held on 30. 3. 1984 in respect of the lottery is illegal, null and void, except the first prize. ( 3. ) THE plaintiff claims to be the purchaser of six lottery tickets, having distinct numbers as detailed in paragraph I of the plaint. The said tickets are issued by the M. P. Flying Club Ltd. on approval by the Government of Madhya pradesh. ( 4. ) THE main grievance of the plaintiff apprears to be that the defendant-appellant the M. P. Flying Club Ltd. has not followed the Madhya Pradesh lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Adhiniyam, 1973. The plaintiffs contention is that he has purchased the tickets under the belief that the rules would be strictly followed. Even according to him to get a prize in a lottery or a bumper draw or any sort of lottery, no skill is required and it is purely a game of luck. It is also contended that had seven draws in all the series of the second, third and fourth prizes been held, chances of securring a prize by different persons would have increased. It is pertinent to note here that in the whole of the plaint the plaintiffs allegation is not that there is some sort of manipulation, manoeuvring or some unfair practice employed by the promoters of the lottery to confer any reward on a chosen ticket holder. The gist of his contention is that Rules 29 and 30 of the rules have not been strictly followed by the defendant-appellants. By amendment dated 29-6-1984 the further contention was added that defendants 3 and 4 have given a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- to defendants I and 2 and it is contended that defendants 1 and 2 have no right whatsoever to sell the lottery to defendants 3 and 4, keeping a margin of Rs. By amendment dated 29-6-1984 the further contention was added that defendants 3 and 4 have given a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- to defendants I and 2 and it is contended that defendants 1 and 2 have no right whatsoever to sell the lottery to defendants 3 and 4, keeping a margin of Rs. 35,00,000/ - for themselves, as it is in breach of section 6 (2) (a) of the M. P. Lottery Adhiniyam, 1973. This contention is of no substance, in view of the fact that the promoters of the lottery have been permitted by the State Government vide letter No. 5472/83/ni-3/char, dated 22-9-1983, to run the lottery through recognised organising agents. Thus, it cannot be said that the arrangement made by the appellants to run the lottery and sell its tickets through the Amrit and Co. , New Delhi and the New Vimal Agency, Madurai was in contravention of any rule or direction. The aforesaid letter issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh is on record. ( 5. ) THE only consideration which now survives for consideration is whether rules 29 and 30 of the M. P. Lottery Rules are mandatory and required to be strictly followed by the promoters of a private lottery. ( 6. ) SHRI Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellants appearing with Shri s. C. Bagadia, contended that a mere reading of these rules with section 30 of the act would go to show that these rules are merely directive and as section 30 provides are applicable as far as possible and it cannot be said that they can be made applicable with all their vigour to private lotteries. His further contention is that in absence of any allegation about fraud or unfair practice, mere non-compliance of these rules would not entitle the plaintiff-respondent to an injunction as he is merely holding a chance depending on luck and has no vested legal right in him. Section 30 of the M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar)Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reads thus : "s. 30-Saving, Nothing in this Act shall apply to (a) a lottery organised by the Central Government or the State government of Madhya Pradesh, (b) a lottery specially authorised by the State Government. " ( 7. Section 30 of the M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar)Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reads thus : "s. 30-Saving, Nothing in this Act shall apply to (a) a lottery organised by the Central Government or the State government of Madhya Pradesh, (b) a lottery specially authorised by the State Government. " ( 7. ) IT is apparent from a mere reading of the rules that the State government considered it necessary in the public interest to make rules for the conduct of such lotteries from time to time and even if these rules are so interpreted as to cover other private lotteries or special lottery, in absence of any allegation as regards unfair practice or fraud in drawing the tickets, there is no justification in law for any interim relief by way of an injunction. Firstly, the plaintiff being merely a ticket holder, a holder of a lucky chance, cannot claim a vested legal right in him, as all these lottery tickets are mere gambles and so long as they are conducted in a fair manner, the purchaser of a lottery ticket cannot seek any interim relief of an equitable nature. A Division Bench of this Court, relying on the case of Sir Dorabji Jamsetji Tata v. Edward F. Lance, 1917 ILR 42 BOM 676, has held in Shikharchand Jain v. Ramnarayan Genda, 1977 II M. P. Weekly Notes No. 118 (Weekly Notes, Note No. 118)that a lottery is a wager and refusal to pay the prize to the winner, would give no cause of action to the ticket holder to sue for the money won on a wager. The facts in the case of Sir Dorabji v. Jamsetji Tata (supra) were that the Western india Turf Club organised a War Loan Lottery having previously obtained the sanction of the Government of India for such undertaking. The tickets in the said lottery from No. 1 onwards were offered to the public, at Rs. 10/-each. The ticket bearing No. 15315 was purchased by the plaintiff Sir Dorabji Jamsetji Tata through one of the agents of the Club, who was authorised to sell the tickets. As the book containing the ticket had not been sold to that number the agent of the club agreed actually to hand over the ticket itself when he got to the particular number in the book. As the book containing the ticket had not been sold to that number the agent of the club agreed actually to hand over the ticket itself when he got to the particular number in the book. Through some mistake the book containing the particular ticket was sent to Calcutta where it was issued and delivered to (defendant No. 3)another person. The plaintiff insisting on having the ticket purchased by him applied to the Club for its delivery to him. The Club thereupon decided to withdraw the ticket No. 15315 altogether, to return the plaintiffs money paid in respect of that ticket and to issue a new ticket 15315-A to defendent No. 3. The defendent No. 3 altored the number of the ticket to 15315-A but the plaintiff declined to abide by this arrangement. The plaintiff then sued the club and the purchaser of the ticket from withdrawing ticket No. 15315 from the lottery and from paying the amount of any prize drawn by that ticket or any other ticket substituted in place thereof. It was on these facts that the High Court of Bombay held that the effect of the sanction of the Government of India being merely to save any prosecution under the Criminal Law, so far as the civil law was concerned, the Government had no power to overrule the Imperial Acts or the acts of the Indian Legislature which determined the rights of parties and that having regard to the first portion of section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, which provided "that agreements by way of wager are void" the contract in question was an agreement by way of wager and was consequently void, and that no injunction could be granted in support of a void contract. ( 8. ) SHRI S. N. Kohli, who was heared at his request as he was not present at the time of arguments, although Shri Thakuria appeared and had argued the matter at length. Shri Kohli was also heard at length as desired by him. Shri kohli advanced the contentions referred to above and further submitted that this courts jurisdiction in the matter of appeal against a discretionary order is narrow and limited and ordinarily the Court granted by the trial Court. There is no dispute over this legal position and the authorities cited by Shri Kohli on this point, viz. Shri kohli advanced the contentions referred to above and further submitted that this courts jurisdiction in the matter of appeal against a discretionary order is narrow and limited and ordinarily the Court granted by the trial Court. There is no dispute over this legal position and the authorities cited by Shri Kohli on this point, viz. , Durga Das v. Nalin Chandra Nandan, AIR 1934 Cal. 694 and M. P. Colliery workers Federation v. United Collieries Ltd. , 1972 M. P. L. J. 78 are of no avail to him. Firstly, because the lottery rules are merely directives and their violation even if proved does not necessarily result in any illegality or a malpractice so as to give the plaintiff any right to sue the promoters of the lottery. As stated eariler, there being no allegation of any fraud, unfair practice or malpractice in the plaint, mere infraction of Rules 29 and 30 of the Rules, even if committed, would not entitle the plaintiff to any injunction. Also heard Shri Marii, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Arun Shrivastava. ( 9. ) IN the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.