JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders of the 1 Courts below and the memo of the revision petition. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent. Along with the suit an application u/O. 39 Fir. 1 & 2 of the CPC for grant or temporary injunction has also been filed. 3. In the plaint as well as in the temporary injunction application it was pleaded that the plaintiff-petitioner is a registered proprietorship concern and is registered under the Milk Production Order, 1992. One of the main business of the plaintiff-petitioner firm is to operate milk chilling centre. The defendant-respondent invited tenders on 13.4.1999 for making available 10 a milk chilling centre in Tonk. The plaintiff-petitioner gave his bid and it is being the lowest was accepted by the defendant-respondent. The agreement is stated to have been executed on 29.11.1999. It was a contract for the period of five years, effective from 1.1.2000 This contract was cancelled ',icier the letter dated 23.4.2000 by the defendant-respondent and thus this 15 litigation. 4. Both the Courts have declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. I find from the order of the learned trial Court and which fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the plaintiff-petitioner under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as per the condition No. 16 of the agreement has filed an application for settlement of the dispute by the arbitrator, before the Chairman, Sawaimadhopur and Tonk Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited. Naimadhopur (for short 'the Sangh'). On this application the Chairman of Sangh vide its letter dated 1.12.2000 appointed a Committee and the consideration of the tenders on 16.12.2000 was deferred till the decision of the matter by arbitration. What ultimately has been done in the arbitration has not been made known to the Court. 5. Both the Courts have considered each and every material produced by the parties and have not found it to be a fit case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is found that the plaintiff-petitioner has riot completed his part of the contract within the prescribed period. He went on to apply for extension of the time. It is found that the plaintiff-petitioner has riot completed his part of the contract within the prescribed period. He went on to apply for extension of the time. I do not find any illegality in the orders of the Courts below which calls for any interference of this Court under section 115 of the CPC.In the result this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.As a consequence of the dismissal of the revision petition, the stay application does not survive and the same is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******