JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division No.1, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.3/2018 arising out of O.S. No.758/2017, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for disobedience of injunction granted vide order dated 22.12.2017, has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff was appointed as authorized dealer of the respondents/ defendants-company vide Dealership Agreement dated 07.10.2010 and has been running dealership since then. The dealership agreement had been periodically renewed with respect to Ranchi up to the year 2015 and with respect to Dhanbad, up to the year 2016 and, thereafter, the dealership agreement continued on mutual understanding, trust and persuasion made by the respondents/defendants-company. He submits that the appellant/plaintiff-dealer had been catering to the sales and service of Toyota Brand of motor vehicles and there had been no complaint regarding the dealership and all of a sudden, vide communication dated 08.12.2017, the dealership agreement was terminated and public notice to this effect was issued that the appellant/plaintiff will not be an authorized dealer w.e.f. 09.03.2018 and in view of that, to maintain reputation the appellant/plaintiff has filed Original Title Suit No.758 of 2017 for declaration that the letter of termination dated 08.12.2017 issued by the respondents/defendants-company followed by public notices regarding termination of dealership of the appellant/plaintiff are ab initio illegal and inconsequential and not binding upon the plaintiff. He submits that in that suit, the appellant herein filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for temporary injunction, which was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2017 in the form of ad-interim injunction till appearance of the respondents/defendants-company and direction has been made to comply the Order XXXIX Rule 3(a)(b) at once and the matter was posted on 20.01.2018. He submits that thereafter the respondents/defendants-company appeared in the suit and filed two applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for modification of the said order and for setting aside of ad-interim ex parte injunction order and the learned Court passed further order on 08.01.2018 to continue the injunction to remain as it is and right of both the parties have been kept open and liberty was also provided to file reply to the petition filed in both miscellaneous cases. He submits that pursuant to that the appellant/plaintiff- dealer filed reply and the learned Court has further passed the order dated 26.03.2018 and the order of status quo was granted. He then submits that thereafter the said suit has been rejected in light of the arbitration clause in the agreement and pursuant to that the arbitration clause has been invoked and the arbitration proceeded and it was decided by the award, which has been challenged by the appellant herein before the competent Court at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which has already been decided by now. He also submits that by the impugned order, the learned Court has rejected the petition challenging violation of injunction order by saying that once the arbitration proceeding will be decided, he will further look into the matter. Aggrieved with that order, this appeal has been preferred. He submits that there is violation and in spite of that, the learned Court has wrongly passed the impugned order and in view of that, this appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no violation and the order is of the year 2017 and now the arbitration proceeding is already over. He draws attention of the Court to the petition filed for violation of injunction order and submits that three things have been raised therein; firstly warranty; secondly insurance portal; and thirdly further condition for appointment of another dealer. He draws attention of the Court to the petition filed for violation of injunction order and submits that three things have been raised therein; firstly warranty; secondly insurance portal; and thirdly further condition for appointment of another dealer. He further submits that there is no violation in view of the fact that so far as the insurance is concerned, that is not being done by the respondents/defendants-company and it is being done by another company and so far as warranty is concerned, that has been restored by the respondents/defendants-company and there is no agreement of not appointing another dealer. He submits that in view of that also, on merit there is no violation of the order. 5. It is an admitted position that the suit itself was not maintainable when the arbitration clause was there and subsequently on that ground, the suit has been dismissed. The interim injunction was granted in absence of the respondents/defendants-company and on their appearance, they have filed reply to the said petition, on the basis of which violation has been alleged in the said petition and three things have been raised therein with regard to violation; warranty, insurance and further advertisement for appointment of another dealer. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant in the course of argument that the warranty has been restored by the respondents/defendants-company and the insurance was being done by another company and further in the agreement, it was not the condition that the respondents/defendants-company will be precluded from appointing another dealer, even if the existence of agreement between the appellant and respondents-company are there. Thus, it appears that there is no violation in view of such admitted position, which has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It has also not been denied that the Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) (b) has been complied with and if it is not complied, that is mandatory provision and for that, it cannot be said that the respondents/defendants-company is at fault. Further, the arbitration proceeding is already over. The Court finds that in light of three objections raised with regard to non-compliance of the interim injunction, sufficient reply is made by the respondents/defendants-company. 7. In view of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.