Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to rectify the defect in the memorandum of appeal in terms of the report of the Stamp Reporter. 2. This appeal will be heard. 3. The lower court records need not be called for. 4. Since Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate has already entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, service of notice of appeal upon the respondent is dispensed with. 5. The appeal is thus, treated ready as regards service. 6. After the appeal was admitted for hearing when the application for stay filed by the appellant in connection with the appeal was taken up for consideration, we were requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 7. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all necessary papers which are required for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the stay application. 8. Accordingly, we have decided to hear out the appeal on merit on the papers available before us and by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 9. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. 10. In a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff, the learned Trial Judge on an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff passed an ad interim order of injunction on 24th August, 2016 whereby the defendant/appellant was restrained by an order of injunction from opening and/or finalising the tender bearing No. EOI.B & R/HO/CAU/BUILDING/51042-45/CW/01 without allowing the plaintiff/petitioner to participate in the financial bid for a period of three weeks. The said ad interim order of injunction was further extended by the learned Trial Judge vide Order No. 5 dated 13th September, 2016 which is still in force. 11. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 12. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing an ad interim order of injunction in the facts of the present case. 13. 11. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 12. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing an ad interim order of injunction in the facts of the present case. 13. Notice inviting expression of interest from resources and experienced parties for construction of 08 (eight) Colleges in North East States under Central Agricultural University (CAU), Imphal was published by the defendant/appellant/company on 20th April, 2016. Qualification criteria for participation in expression of interest (hereinafter referred to as EOI) was laid down in the following manner:- “QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION IN EOI: (a) The Bidder should have executed “similar work” in any of the States of North East (NE) in the preceding seven (7) years reckoned as on latest date of bid submission, with copy of completion certificate with value or value of executed work till date of the EOI (in case of running job) along with Work Order copy issued by Clients in support thereof, value of which should be either of the following:- 3 (Three) works each costing not less than the amount equal to 30% of the assessed cost put to EOI for respective packages. 2 (two) works each costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of the assessed cost put to EOI for respective packages. 1 (one) work costing not less than the amount equal to 70 % of the assessed cost put to EOI for respective packages.” “Similar work” means Civil Works for building including foundation, substructure & super structure work involving reinforced cement concrete (RCC). “Executed” means bidder should have achieved the criteria specified above even if the contract has not been completed or closed. 14. The said EOI also provides that the bidder must provide any further details required for the review upon request from B & R viz. the defendant/company and failure to comply with any request by B & R (defendant/company) for such information may result in rejection of their offer. The plaintiff participated in the tender process. It also submitted copy of the documents which the plaintiff was required to submit to satisfy its qualification criteria in terms of the said notice being EOI. 15. the defendant/company and failure to comply with any request by B & R (defendant/company) for such information may result in rejection of their offer. The plaintiff participated in the tender process. It also submitted copy of the documents which the plaintiff was required to submit to satisfy its qualification criteria in terms of the said notice being EOI. 15. For verification of the genuineness of the copy of documents, which were submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant/company by its letter dated 14th July, 2016 requested the plaintiff/company to submit the following original documents, copies of which have been submitted with its EOI document and subsequent reply:- “1. WO dtd. 02.11.06 & Agreement No. EE/TPWD/MKG/M-Complex/005-06/748, Dtd. 02.11.2006 and Performance Certificate dtd. 21.12.2009 & 09.11.2015 issued by EE, Town Planning Works Div., Kohima, Nagaland. 2. Agreement No. 700001/NER(C)/491/3166, Dtd. 11.02.2012 & LOI dtd. 11.02.12 and Performance Certificate dtd. 05.03.2015 issued by M/s. NPCC Ltd., Shillong. 3. Agreement No. 700001/NER(C)/328/1740, Dtd. 14.10.2009; LOI dtd. 14.10.09 and Performance Certificate dtd. 05.03.2015 issued by M/s. NPCC Ltd, Shillong. 4. Audited Balance Sheet for FY : 12-13; 13-14 & 14-15 and Turnover Certificate dtd. 24.08.2015 issued by Chattered Accountant. 5. Service Tax Registration No. AAFPZ0231MST001. No fresh credential documents will be accepted during verification.” 16. Though the plaintiff claims in its pleading that it produced all those original documents to the concerned authority of the defendant/company, the concerned authority after considering those original documents, expressed its satisfaction about the fulfilment of the qualification criteria by the plaintiff. 17. Since subsequently the plaintiff was not allowed to participate in the post technical bid process even without intimating it as to whether the petitioner was disqualified or not, the plaintiff filed the said suit and prayed for interim order of injunction so that the selection process cannot be completed by the defendant/company without permitting the plaintiff to participate in the post technical bid process. 18. The learned Trial Judge in the facts as stated above passed an ad interim order of injunction for a limited period and the said ad interim order of injunction was subsequently extended by the impugned order which is still in force. 19. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears to us that while passing the said ad interim order of injunction and/or extending the same, the learned Trial Judge did not consider the documents (verification) which were annexed to the plaint. 19. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears to us that while passing the said ad interim order of injunction and/or extending the same, the learned Trial Judge did not consider the documents (verification) which were annexed to the plaint. The said documents (verification) show that the plaintiff failed to produce the three original documents which are as follows:- 1.0 Construction of Car Parking cum Shopping Complex including allied services at Mokokchung Town, Nagaland. (i) WO dtd. 02.11.2006 (ii) Agreement No. EE/TPWD/MKG/M-Complex/005-06/748, Dtd. 02.11.2006 (iii) Performance Certificate dtd. 21.12.2009 & 09.11.2015 issued by EE, Town Planning Works Div., Kohima, Nagaland. 20. The bidder himself signed the said documents wherein it was mentioned that the original of those three documents could not be submitted by the plaintiff before the concerned authority of the defendant/company during the verification process. 21. When the plaintiff itself failed to satisfy the basic qualification criteria for participating in the selection process, we are of the prima facie view that the plaintiff has failed to make out of prima facie case for going to trial. 22. That apart, considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the parties, we are of the view that if the tender process is stalled by way of injunction in a case of this nature, the public interest at large will suffer as the construction of 8 (eight) Colleges could not be completed within the time bound period. 23. On the basis of the pleadings made out by the plaintiff itself in the plaint as well as in the injunction application, we find that the plaintiff could not satisfy even the basic qualification criteria for participating in the selection process. As such, we cannot agree with the conclusion which was drawn by the learned Trial Judge while passing ad interim order of injunction. 24. We thus, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 25. Leave is granted to the defendant/appellant to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction within two weeks after reopening of the Court after Puja vacation, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a week thereafter. 26. 24. We thus, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 25. Leave is granted to the defendant/appellant to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction within two weeks after reopening of the Court after Puja vacation, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a week thereafter. 26. We request the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction in accordance with law and according to his own wisdom as expeditiously as possible but preferably within 15th December, 2016 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 27. It is further clarified that the learned Trial Judge is absolutely free to decide the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove as the observations made by us while disposing of the plaintiff’s application for ad interim order of injunction do not operate as res judicata while deciding the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. 28. Both the appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. 29. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.