The subject matter of both these Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals is order dated 09.04.2011 passed by Principal District Judge, Reasi in a civil suit titled as Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Chief Executive Officer, SMVDSB & anr., whereby an application for grant of ad-interim relief came to be allowed (for short, impugned order). The appellants in CIMA No.222/2011 have questioned the order impugned on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. The appellant in CIMA No.215/2011 is not a party to the civil suit, titled above, and has sought permission to file appeal on the ground that the impugned order has adversely affected its rights, which was granted vide order dated 27.04.2011 and the appeal was taken up on Board. The moot question for consideration in both the appeals is whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or otherwise. In order to arrive at just conclusion, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, which has given rise to these appeals. A tender notice was issued by the appellants in CIMA No.222/2011 inviting tenders for Flight Operations in the air space of Jammu & Kashmir from Katra to Sanjichhat and back using its Heliports at Katra and Sanjichhat purely on leave and license basis for a period of three years with effect from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. Plaintiff-Summit Aviation also offered its tender which was rejected on the ground that it was not inconformity with Clause (a) & (d) of the NIT and tenders of two companies, namely, Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. and Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. were accepted. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein filed a suit for declaration and sought the following relief. Suit for declaration declaring the decision taken by the defendants whereby the technical bid of the plaintiff has been rejected in respect of the allotment of contract in terms of the Tender Notification No.CO/ADM/662/3224 dated 23.02.2011 as void and inoperative. AND The plaintiff s financial bid be declared to be opened for the contract of providing Helicopter Service for Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. AND Declaring the selection of the two companies namely Pawan Hans and Global Vectra for providing Helicopter services for Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine as null and void, inoperative and ineffective which has been done arbitrarily and without adopting the CVC guidelines adopted for the tendering process. AND Declaring the selection of the two companies namely Pawan Hans and Global Vectra for providing Helicopter services for Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine as null and void, inoperative and ineffective which has been done arbitrarily and without adopting the CVC guidelines adopted for the tendering process. WITH Consequential relief of mandatory/prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants: i. to allot the contract to anybody; and ii. execute agreement with anybody. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper. The grounds taken in the suit were that in response to the NIT, the plaintiff- respondent no.1 herein also submitted its tender thereby fulfilling all the requisite eligibility conditions in terms of Clause 7 (a) and (d) of the tender document, so the rejection of its technical bid by the appellants-SMVDSB is bad as the same was rejected with malafide intention. Clause 7(a) and (d) of the NIT are reproduced here-in-below. 7. The bidding company must fulfill the following eligibility conditions: (a) The bidder must have minimum flying experience of 5 years with each of the flying pilots possessing a minimum mountain flying experience of 1500 hours as on 01.03.2011. (b) The bidder must have a minimum of 4 pilots on its rolls, each of whom is duly trained to fly the helicopters which the bidder intends to put on offer for operations. All pilots should have been in the direct employment of the bidder for a minimum period of 6 months on the date of bidding. Alongside the suit, plaintiff-respondent no.1 also filed an application for grant of ad-interim relief, came to be granted vide the impugned order and directed the defendant-SMVDSB to reconsider the decision; with a further direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein for furnishing clarification; with a command to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to approach the defendant-SMVDSB with requisite documents. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the impugned order herein. Any decision on the fulfillment of these conditions and thereafter the opening of financial bid is within the competence of the Board, the non-applicants. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the impugned order herein. Any decision on the fulfillment of these conditions and thereafter the opening of financial bid is within the competence of the Board, the non-applicants. As such, the non-applicants are directed to reconsider their decision on ineligibility of the applicant for qualification for preliminary fulfillment of technical qualification on the discrepancies involved by giving them the reasonable opportunity for providing the clarification and the plaintiffs may approach with all requisite documents including these, the copy of which has been shown to the court to the non-applicants, who shall consider the same and in the end in the eventuality of the eligibility after reconsideration for opening of the financial bid and negotiate accordingly with the plaintiff. The observations made in this order are only for disposal of the temporary injunction application, without any prejudice to the determination of the main suit. Admittedly, the two companies, namely, Pawan Hans and Global Vectra, who have been allotted the tenders, are not parties to the suit. Virtually the relief is sought against them and the interim direction granted is also directly affecting their rights. Objection was raised, but despite of that the trial court has not discussed the same and returned its finding. If the consideration order goes in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein, the same would adversely affect the said companies and would amount to cancellation of allotment made by the defendant-SMVDSB in their favour. It is a moot question whether an interim relief can be granted in the following circumstances: i. the important and necessary parties are not arrayed as party defendants. ii. Whether plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees correctly at Rs.51000/-. iii. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein has averred in para-9 of the suit that Captain Irshad Ahmad, who was authorized to evaluate the technical specifications of the bid, was the employee of Pawan Hans and was on deputation with DGCA. Pawan Hans or Captain Irshad Ahmad would have replied to it, but are not parties to the suit. iv. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein has alleged malafides on the part of defendants, are not parties in person. v. Whether interim relief can be granted which has virtually the effect of decreeing the suit. Trial court has also not discussed the three principles, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. iv. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein has alleged malafides on the part of defendants, are not parties in person. v. Whether interim relief can be granted which has virtually the effect of decreeing the suit. Trial court has also not discussed the three principles, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In the given circumstances, without discussing all this, was the trial court was within its jurisdiction to grant relief. Having glance of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned order merits to be set aside with the following directions. Appellant in CIMA No.215/2011 is at liberty to file an application for arraying it as a party in the array of defendants. Plaintiff is also at liberty to lay motion for arraying both the companies and Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrin Board as parties to the suit by or before 02.04.2012, if not already made, and trial court is directed to decide the same within one week, i.e., by or before 09.04.2012. The trial court thereafter is directed to decide the application for grant of interim relief within one month, i.e., by or before 10.05.2012. Accordingly appeals are allowed and impugned order is set aside. Parties are directed to cause their appearance before the trial court on 02.04.2012. Registry to send down the record forthwith along with a copy of this order.