Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22nd of February, 2012 passed in Original Suit No. 425 of 2009 (Smt. Rani Goldi and another Vs. Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another) whereby the court below has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC holding that the suit for injunction is not maintainable. 3. The background facts may be noted in brief. 4. The appellants herein are running a petroleum pump granted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Bareilly, under a contract dated 31st of March, 2005. The said contract was terminated by the order dated 25th of June, 2009. Initially, the appellants herein challenged the said order dated 25th of June, 2009 by filing a writ petition before this Court but they were relegated to civil court for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, the appellants herein instituted Original Suit No. 425 of 2009 claiming a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. They claimed that the order dated 25th of June, 2009 cancelling the license of the appellants be declared to be null and void. They also claimed a decree for permanent injunction for direction to the defendants to restore the supply of the products to the plaintiffs. The defendants raised a plea that such a suit is not maintainable and the only remedy to the plaintiffs is to claim damages. 5. The trial court examined the matter and held that the suit is barred by Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the court below was not justified in rejecting the plaint. It was also submitted by him that at least an opportunity should have been given to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by amending relief. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that controversy at hand has been settled by this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Khaybar Transport Pvt. Ltd, 2011(3) ALJ 719. 8. Considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that controversy at hand has been settled by this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Khaybar Transport Pvt. Ltd, 2011(3) ALJ 719. 8. Considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Indisputably, the appellants herein are enforcing the contract of agency which was unilaterally terminated by the order dated 25th of June, 2009, according to the appellants illegally. In such matters, the only remedy is to claim damages for illegal breach of the contract. We find that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court has examined the matter in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and others [ (1991) 1 SCC 533 ] wherein it has been held that Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly provides that the contracts of the of the nature provided therein cannot be specifically enforced namely a contract which in its nature is determinable. 10. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the court below has rightly held that the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction is not maintainable and the only remedy, if any, is available to the appellants is that of claiming damages for breach of the contract. There is no error in the order of the judment of the trial court. We find that the trial court while making reference of the ruling has not given the complete citation of the ruling. It has not given the name of the parties. We expect that in future the judicial officer shall keep in mind that the full particulars including the name of the parties should be mentioned in the judgment and order. 11. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily. _