JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 2. This CMP arises out of the order dated 6th January, 2021 (Annexure-11) passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kujang in FAO No. 19 of 2020, whereby he confirmed the findings in order dated 16th December 2020 (Annexure-9) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kujang in I.A. No. 211 of 2020 (arising out of C.S. No. 243 of 2020) and directed the Opposite Party herein to deposit 70% of the freight cost in the bank account of the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 in advance prior to transportation of Cargo by the Trucks of the PetitionerAssociation. 3. The averments made in the CMP reveal that the Opposite Party, a registered transporter, filed C.S. No. 243 of 2020 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kujang for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant No.1-Association (present petitioner) from transporting Phospho-Gypsum purchased by Defendant No.2 from Defendant No.3-Paradeep Phosphate Limited (PPL) by any transporter other than the Plaintiff (Opp. Party herein) and for a mandatory injunction to direct the Defendant No.1-Association (Petitioner herein) to transport Phospho-Gypsum purchased by Defendant No.2 from Defendant No.3-PPL through the Plaintiff-transporter and for other consequential and ancillary relief. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiff-Opposite Party that the Plaintiff being a transporter was selected by Defendant No.2 for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum from the plant-site of Defendant No.3 to its (Defendant No.2's) stockyard at Manguli. The Defendant No.1 being a truck owners' Association signed MOU with the Plaintiff for transportation of 1.5 lakh MT of Phospo-Gypsum from the site of Defendant No.3 to the stockyard of Defendant No.2. Subsequently, on 30.01.2020 an agreement was also executed between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 for the said purpose for supply of Trucks for transportation of 1.5 lakh M.T. of Phospho-Gypsum to the stockyard of Defendant No.2 at Manguli. Out of the said contracted amount, the Plaintiff has already transported 25,000 M.T. of Phospho-Gypsum through Defendant No.1. At this stage, the Defendant No.1 stopped supply of Trucks to the Plaintiff-transporter for transportation on 25.10.2020 and entered into an agreement with one Kalinga Service Transporters for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum which compelled the Plaintiff to file the suit. 5. Out of the said contracted amount, the Plaintiff has already transported 25,000 M.T. of Phospho-Gypsum through Defendant No.1. At this stage, the Defendant No.1 stopped supply of Trucks to the Plaintiff-transporter for transportation on 25.10.2020 and entered into an agreement with one Kalinga Service Transporters for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum which compelled the Plaintiff to file the suit. 5. Along with the plaint, the Plaintiff-transporter filed I.A. No. 211 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. to restrain the Defendant No.1 (present petitioner) from carrying Phospho-Gypsum purchased by Defendant No.2 from the plant site of Defendant No. 3 through any transporter other than the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 filed objection to the said I.A. stating that the Plaintiff violated the terms of the MOU by making payment of freight charges to the truck owners directly, whereas MOU stipulates that it should have been deposited in the bank account of Defendant No.1. Plaintiff violated the Clauses-10 and 13 of MOU. The contract between Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 ended on 29.08.2020. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 was obtained fraudulently. Hence, it was contended that the I.A. is liable to be dismissed. The said I.A. was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-9) holding that the Defendant No.1 has not specifically denied about the existence of the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The act of alleged fraud was not specifically pleaded. The Plaintiff has a strong prima facie case in view of the agreement dated 31.01.2020. The bar under Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act can only be considered at the time of hearing of the suit. As such, the Defendant No. 1 was restrained from carrying PhosphoGypsum purchased by Defendant No. 2 to its stockyard at Manguli through any transporter other than the Plaintiff. 6. Assailing the same, the Defendant No.1 preferred FAO No. 19 of 2020 before learned Addl. District Judge, Kujang, who vide his order dated 6th January, 2021, while confirming the findings of the learned trial Court directed the Plaintifftransporter to deposit 70% of the freight cost in the bank account of Defendant No.1-Association in advance prior to transportation of cargo by Trucks through the Defendant No.1-Association. 7. Mr. District Judge, Kujang, who vide his order dated 6th January, 2021, while confirming the findings of the learned trial Court directed the Plaintifftransporter to deposit 70% of the freight cost in the bank account of Defendant No.1-Association in advance prior to transportation of cargo by Trucks through the Defendant No.1-Association. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly assailed the impugned order on the ground that although a reference is made therein to the letter dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure-5) demanding enhanced freight cost and MOU dated 31.08.2020 between Kalinga Service Transporters and Defendant No.1 (Annexure-7), those were not considered in their proper perspective. Thus, the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The case of the Plaintiff also suffers from suppression of facts. In view of the MOU dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure-6) the Plaintiff has no prima facie case. As such, relief sought for by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party should not have been granted. He further submitted that due to hike in the price of fuel along with other charges, the agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 became unenforceable and the same was also conveyed to the Plaintifftransporter vide Annexure-5. He further submitted that the Plaintiff-transporter has itself violated the terms of the MOU by making payment to the Truck owners directly without remitting the freight charges to the bank account of Defendant No.1. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to learned trial court for fresh adjudication taking into consideration the letter and MOU under Annexures-5 and 7 respectively. 8. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently objected to the same and contended that MOU, if any, signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 was never brought before the Court for consideration. Be that as it may, after execution of the agreement dated 31.01.2020, the MOU, if any, lost its significance. The work order issued in favour of Defendant No.1 was never cancelled. Thus, the Plaintifftransporter is entitled to carry on transportation of PhosphoGypsum through Defendant No.1-Association. Learned courts below considering the matter from its proper perspective have restrained the Defendant No.1-Association from carrying Phospho-Gypsum purchased by Defendant No.2 to its stockyard through any other transporter. Learned Addl. The work order issued in favour of Defendant No.1 was never cancelled. Thus, the Plaintifftransporter is entitled to carry on transportation of PhosphoGypsum through Defendant No.1-Association. Learned courts below considering the matter from its proper perspective have restrained the Defendant No.1-Association from carrying Phospho-Gypsum purchased by Defendant No.2 to its stockyard through any other transporter. Learned Addl. District Judge protecting the interest of Defendant No.1 directed the Plaintiff to deposit 70% of the freight charges in the bank account of Defendant No. 1 in advance before transportation of Cargo. Thus, the Defendant No.1 is no way prejudiced by the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the CMP. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. It is not disputed that there exists an agreement dated 31.01.2020 between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum from the plant-site of Defendant No. 3-PPL to the stockyard of Defendant No. 2 at Manguli. Pursuant to the said agreement, 25.000 M.T. of Phospho-Gypsum has already been transported by the Plaintiff. At this juncture, for some reason or other, the Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement one Kalinga Service Transporters, for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum to the stockyard of Defendant No.2. Although a plea was taken by the Defendant No.1-Petitioner to the effect that the Plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the agreement for which the Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with Kalinga Service Transporters for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum, but such allegation is unfounded and is based on no material. As observed by learned trial Court, due to non-supply of bank details of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff-transporter was compelled to release the freight charges to the Truck owners directly for their sustenance. Both the Courts below taking into consideration the ingredients of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. have categorically come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff-Opposite Party satisfies all the ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. Further, in order to protect the interest of Defendant No.1-Petitioner learned Addl. District Judge directed the Plaintiff-Opposite Party to deposit 70% of the freight charges in the bank account of Defendant No.1-Petitioner in advance for transportation of Phospho-Gypsum. The documents alleged to have been not considered by the courts below as at Annexures-5 and 7 do not improve the case of Defendant No.1 in any manner so as to refuse the order of temporary injunction. The documents alleged to have been not considered by the courts below as at Annexures-5 and 7 do not improve the case of Defendant No.1 in any manner so as to refuse the order of temporary injunction. 11. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.