JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.2.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner in which the order dated 28.1.2002 was challenged. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra has dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner on 28.1.2002 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code) in which prayer was made to restrain the defendant-respondent No. 1 from getting the work of handling and transport contract of the State agencies whose godowns are taken on lease by Food Corporation of India respondent No. 1 which in the present case is the labour contractor of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. The District Judge while dismissing the appeal has recorded the various reasons for reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff-petitioner was not entitled to the interim relief claim. The order of the District Judge reads as under : "A close perusal of the tender/document of labour contract, executed between the plaintiff-appellant and the FCI shows that if relatives to the appointment of contractor for loading/unloading/handling and transportation of the foodgrains at FCI godowns and rail heads, at Ladwa. A further close security of the same shows that according to it, such a contractor is supposed to do the requisite labour job of loading/unloading of foodgrain bags from/into Railways wagons; truck etc.; stocking the foodgrains in bags; bagging; rebagging; weightment, standardisation; cleaning of foodgrains etc. and the transportation of the foodgrains from Railway Station to Corporation godowns or vice-versa or for transporting them from a place to any other place in and around Ladwa/Kurukshetra, as may be required from day to day by Senior Regional Manager, FCI or an officer acting on his behalf. Not only that, therein it is also specified that no definite volume of work, to be performed by such contractor can be guaranteed during the currency of the contract and the tender contains only some items of general information and the particulars given in the appendix to the tender was intended merely to give tenderer an idea of estimated quantum of work, to facilitate and to make their own estimate for giving the quotation in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In addition to that, it was also made clear that there was no guarantee that all of the items of work, as shown in the said annexure of tender will be required to be performed by such a contractor. Hence, in the given circumstances the learned trial Court was absolutely right in holding that this very fact disentitles the plaintiff firm in seeking the injunction of the nature sought for. A further persual of letter No. stg/const/God/HWC/2000/Vol. 44, dated 31.12.2001, written by Regional Manager, FCI, Chandigarh, to his District Manager, at Kurukshetra, etc. copy of which has been placed on the record, shows that it pertains to guide-lines for storing of stocks in the godowns being constructed under 7 year guarantee programme by HWCWC; HAFED; HAIC and therein it is mentioned specifically that handling arrangements of the foodgrains, to be stored in the godowns constructed by such State agencies, under the said scheme, shall be made by them, whereas vide D.O. No. stg/construction/Godowns/HWC/200/dated 11.6.2001, copy of which has also been placed on record, the Senior Regional Manager of FCI Haryana informed Managing Director of Haryana Warehousing Corporation, as well as Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana, that such State agencies shall have to make their own arrangements for handling foodgrains operations in their depots and FCI will make their own arrangements for transportation, loading/unloading of rakes at the railway heads, by appointing their own Handling Transport Contractor (HTC). Therein it is also mentioned that no FCI labour will be engaged for handling operations in any one of the HWC (Haryana Warehousing Corporation) godowns, to be construed under the said programme. For the same the plaintiff firm cannot claim that in contravention of the said tender/contract, entered into between them and the FCI, the FCI has engaged some other Handling Transport Contractor for undertaking the labour/transport job in such godowns, constructed by HWC and other such State agencies under 7 years Guarantee Programme. Moreover, an appraisal of the said letters as well as letter No. Hafed/M(WM)/AW-1/3201-16 dated 6.11.2001, issued by Hafed to its District Managers, at Kurukshetra etc. Moreover, an appraisal of the said letters as well as letter No. Hafed/M(WM)/AW-1/3201-16 dated 6.11.2001, issued by Hafed to its District Managers, at Kurukshetra etc. as well as letter No. Hafed/M(WH)-III/dated 22.11.2001, issued by such federation to their District Managers, at such places, shows that therein too it is mentioned that as per agreement between them and FCI the labour arrangements for loading of trucks, deputed by FCI for the purposes of transportation and foodgrains from the storage point, will also be made by them. Even all of the Warehousing facilities, which include proper stocking of the stocks, brushing of bags; cleanliness of godowns; watch and ward etc. will be provided by them which means that till such foodgrains is shifted from such hired godowns, either the Hafed or the other concerned State agency, owning such godowns, shall be responsible for the possession and maintenance of the same. Thus for that reason also the plaintiff-appellant, the labour/transport contractor of FCI cannot claim that he is entitled to undertake such job as a matter of right. It would be further noted that in his own affidavit, Mr. S.K. Yadav, District Managers, FCI at Kurukshetra, has also stated that till such paddy/rice is accepted by the FCI, in aforesaid godowns, the ownership of the same rests with the concerned agency and they are responsible for getting milled the paddy. Not only that, the milled rice by such agency is to be delivered to them in such hired godowns and they will accept the same only if it is found within their specification and till so accepted the ownership thereof is of the concerned agency. Thus the responsibility of the operation upto dumping in godowns, upto storage point, is of the concerned agency/miller. Hence, in this view of the matter also the plaintiff firm cannot claim that in fact only they are entitled to undertake such labour job/transportation. For the reasons recorded above, I fully agree with the well reasoned order under challenge, rendered by the Court below, to the effect that the plaintiff firm has utterly failed to make out a prima facie case, justifying the issuance of the injunction of the nature sought for, as the contract awarded to them by FCI does not include the work in question. Moreover, as per contract they cannot claim that a specific work or the volume of work is to be handled by them only, which means that even the balance of convenience does not lie in their favour. Furthermore, they have also failed to show that they shall have to suffer irreparable loss, in case the injunction of the nature sought for is not granted in their favour. Rather in this regard it would in their favour. Rather in this regard it would be noted that in such a case the damages, which may be sought for by the plaintiff firm, in the case of any violation, of the terms and conditions of the contract between them and the FCI may be efficacious remedy and for that reason also the contract for the labour/transport job in question cannot be enforced specifically. Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order under challenge, rendered by the Court below, the same is hereby affirmed. Resultantly this appeal stands dismissed, with costs. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly." 2. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has drawn my attention to the note in the contract happened after clauses 1, 2 and 3 which reads as under :- "Note :- Notwithstanding the number and storage capacity of the existing godowns and those expected to be constructed/acquired during the contract period, the description of which is given in the tender, the corporation may during the currency of the contractor take over/acquire/construct more godowns for storage as and when necessary. Alternatively, it may also be necessary for the Corporation to give up or release one or more godowns out of those, the description of which is given in these documents or out of those which are constructed or acquired later, during the pendency of the contract. Alternatively, it may also be necessary for the Corporation to give up or release one or more godowns out of those, the description of which is given in these documents or out of those which are constructed or acquired later, during the pendency of the contract. In such an event the contract shall not be rendered void and contractors shall be bound to perform all the services/duties and execute all the works as per terms and conditions and rates of the contract and they shall not be entitled to make any claim whatsoever against the Corporation for compensation of rates or otherwise due to increase/decease in the number of godowns or the storage capacity or the godowns." On the basis of above-mentioned note, learned Counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has submitted that storage capacity of the existing godowns and those expected to be constructed/acquired during the contract period or any other godown which Corporation may, during the currency of the contract, take over/acquire/construct more godowns for storage would cover the godowns which have been constructed by the State agencies under 7 years Guarantee Programme and the afore-mentioned clause of the contract cannot be confined only to the FCI godowns. On the basis of afore-mentioned note, he has further argued that the trial Court should have granted ad interim injunction because this note stipulates that the plaintiff-petitioner is not entitled to make any claim whatsoever against the defendant-respondents for compensation of rates or otherwise due to increase/decrease in the number of godowns or the storage capacity of the godowns. Therefore, interpretation given by the District Judge in the last concluding para of the judgment that the work allotted to defendant-respondent No. 2 is not covered by the contract entered into by defendant-respondent No. 1 with the plaintiff-petitioner, is erroneous. He has further drawn my attention to clause IX(ii) of the contract which deals with period of contract and its termination before the period. According to the learned Counsel, clause IX(ii) contemplates service of 30 days notice in writing to the plaintiff-petitioner as allotment of work to a person other than the plaintiff-petitioner is a partial termination of the contract. Therefore, 30 days notice is required to be given. Another argument raised by the learned Counsel is based on letter dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure P.3) addressed to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India. Therefore, 30 days notice is required to be given. Another argument raised by the learned Counsel is based on letter dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure P.3) addressed to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India. According to the learned Counsel the work of storing of stocks in the godowns being constructed under 7 years guarantee scheme by Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehousing Corporation, HAFED and HAIC are fully covered by the contract entered into between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant- respondent No. 1. Therefore, this work cannot be allotted to someone like defendant-respondent No. 2 because the plaintiff-petitioner would suffer substantial loss as he would not be able to charge for the work which has been allotted to defendant-respondent No. 2. 3. On the contrary, Shri K.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for defendant-respondent No. 1 has argued that under 7 years guarantee programme the State agencies have constructed their own godowns because the State agencies have undertaken to complete safe storage of the food and its cleaning, spray and transportation. He has drawn my attention to the clause XIV of the contract which deals with the volume of work and incorporate the condition that defendant-respondent No. 1 has undertaken to allow definite volume of work or any particular pattern of service at any time or throughout the period of contract. The clause went to the extent of stipulating that defendant- respondent No. 1 would also have the right to appoint one or more contractors at any time viz. at the time of award to the contract and/or during the tenure of contract for any or all the services mentioned here under and to divide the work as between such contractors in any manner that the Corporation may decide and no claim shall lie against the Corporation by reasons of such division of work. Therefore, it is contended that there is no undertaking in the contract that even in respect of the godowns owned by defendant-respondent No. 1, the work cannot be allotted to any other contractor. 4. Shri M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for defendant-respondent No. 2 has argued that the revision petition itself is not maintainable because even if the order is not in accordance with the law and if it does not cause complete failure of justice no revision could lie. 4. Shri M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for defendant-respondent No. 2 has argued that the revision petition itself is not maintainable because even if the order is not in accordance with the law and if it does not cause complete failure of justice no revision could lie. For this proposition, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76. In respect of the impugned order, he has submitted that a categorical finding has been recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the contract between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant- respondent No. 1 relates to the appointment of contractor for loading/unloading/handling and transportation of the foodgrains at FCI godowns and rail heads at Pipli. He has drawn my attention to the definition of expression of godown in clause (1) under the terms and conditions governing contract for transport, unloading/lodging of foodgrains, etc. at Food Corporation Depots (defendant-respondent No. 1). Definition of clause (1) reads as under :- "1. Definition. - (i) The term "contract shall mean and include the invitation to tender, incorporating also the instructions to tenders. The tender, its annexures and schedules acceptance of tender and such general and special conditions as may be added to it. (ii) The term "Corporation and the "Food Corporation" wherever occurs shall mean the Food Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, and will include its Manager Director/Secretary, and its successor, or successors and assignees. (iii) The term "Senior Regional Manager" shall mean the Senior Regional Manager under Food Corporation of India under whose administrative jurisdiction the Food Corporation Depots/Godowns to which the contracts relates fall. The term Senior Regional Manager shall also include the Regional Manager, District Managers and every other officer authorised for the time being to execute contracts on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. (iv) The term "Contractor" shall mean and include the person or persons, firm or company with whom the contract has been placed including their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and their permitted assignees as the case may be. (iv) The term "Contractor" shall mean and include the person or persons, firm or company with whom the contract has been placed including their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and their permitted assignees as the case may be. (v) The term "Services" shall mean performance of any of the item of work enumerated in schedule of services as elaborated in, Clause XIX here in including such auxiliary, additional and incidental duties, services and operations as may be indicated by the Senior Regional Manager or an officer acting on his behalf. (vi) The term "contract rates" shall mean the rates of payment accepted by the Senior Regional Manager for and on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. (vii) The term "godown" shall mean and include depots, godowns, silos, binds already belonging to or in occupation of the Corporation or may hereafter be constructed or acquired by it at any time and shall also mean and include open platform/plinths built or constructed for storage of foodgrains inside or outside the depot premises. (viii) The term "Foodgrains" shall mean and include foodgrains, products of foodgrains, fertilizers, sugar etc. (ix) The term "Truck" wherever mentioned shall mean mechanically driven vehicles such as lorries etc. and shall exclude animal driven vehicles. (x) The term "Platform" wherever mentioned shall also include all existing Railway lines whether on or off the platform." 5. According to the learned Counsel, the godowns included in the contract between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondent No. 1 are only those godowns which belong to or in occupation of the Corporation or which may be constructed or acquired by defendant-respondent No. 1. He has further drawn my attention to the clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the contract and further clauses of the contract to show that only clause 3 is filled up, is the operative clause and which has subject heading godown served by railway stations/goods/sheds. Other clauses I and II and clause II(1) under the heading godowns constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period have been crossed. According to the learned Counsel, once the clause concerning godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period of 2 years has been crossed then it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that the contract covers within the godowns to be constructed by defendant-respondent No. 1 or acquired by defendant-respondent No. 1. According to the learned Counsel, once the clause concerning godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period of 2 years has been crossed then it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that the contract covers within the godowns to be constructed by defendant-respondent No. 1 or acquired by defendant-respondent No. 1. He has also drawn my attention to the title of the contract which announces invitation to tender and instructions to tenderers for appointment of loading/unloading/handling and transport contractors at Food Corporation Godowns and Railheads. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel it is only godowns of defendant- respondent No. 1 in respect of which contract has been entered. Therefore, it cannot cover any other work. He further argued that according to clause XIV volume of work is not guaranteed and even defendant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to appoint any other contractor. The plaintiff-petitioner is not entitled to seek a restrain order against the allotment of work to defendant- respondent No. 2. According to the learned Counsel, FCI would acquire the ownership of the goods, paddy etc., to be stored by the State agencies after the paddy is milled and milled rice is accepted if the same is found to be within the norm. Till that time, concerned State agency is to remain the owner of the paddy. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Firstly, the volume of work has not been guaranteed and defendant- respondent No. 1 has kept power under Clause VII to itself for appointment even of other contractors in respect of the godowns belonging to it. Moreover, the ownership of the paddy to be stored by the State agency in its godowns would not pass till the time paddy is milled and the milled rice are accepted to have met the norm set by defendant-respondent No. 1. It is further clear that after clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the contract, there are two clauses. Clause (II) as the heading godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period has been crossed. Meaning thereby that the parties have not entered into any agreement with regard to the godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period. Clause (II) as the heading godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period has been crossed. Meaning thereby that the parties have not entered into any agreement with regard to the godowns expected to be constructed/acquired during the proposed contract period. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have taken a particular view of the matter which view cannot be considered to have suffered from any material irregularity or illegality warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.