1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The appellant-firm filed a suit-in the civil Court for a perpetual injunction to restrain respondent Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited from realising the amount covered by the Bank guarantee which the appellant had furnished to the Mill in the sum of Rs. 5,02,000 as coverage for its appointment as an agent of the Mill for sale of its manufactured cloth. The suit was necessitated because the Mill had initiated proceedings against the appellant for enforcing the Bank guarantee which, according to the appellant's case, could not be done without going into the accounts between the parties. .
2. Alongside the suit, a prayer for temporary injunction was made, which was granted by the trial Court on the 26th of November 1969, on the condition that the appellant furnished a fresh Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000. The need for a fresh guarantee arose because the guarantee already furnished by the appellant was to expire on the 7th of December 1969. Against the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction on the condition aforesaid, the respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Lyallpur, which was heard and decided ex parte against the appellant and the order of the trial Judge was set aside. The appellant went in revision to the High Court against the appellate order of the District Judge, which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave of this Court.
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held, inter alia, that the appellant should have approached the lower appellate Court under Order XLI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rehearing the appeal which was disposed of ex parte. The appellant had his remedy under Order XLI and it was appropriate that he should have first sought this remedy before approaching the High Court under section 115, C. P. C.
4. It appears that under the orders of the learned Additional District Judge service of notice was effected by handing it over to Mr. Hamidullah, alleged to be the appellant's Accountant and also by pasting the notice on the appellant's office premises. A registered notice was also sent to the appellant-firm but it was returned unserved. Furthermore, the bailiff's report shows that service was also effected by beat of drum near the office of the appellant although this mode was not directed by the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge had to direct substituted service because earlier the notice could not be served in the normal way.
5. On merits the learned Judge of the High Court observed that inasmuch as the appellant complained of violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Agency by the respondent, the appellant should either sue for specific performance of the Contract or for damages.
6. As regards the realisation of the amount covered by the Bank guarantee it appears from Condition No. 3 of the Agency Agree--ment produced before us that the principals are entitled to appropriate the whole or part of the deposit money or call upon the Bank guarantee in payment of any sum due to them from the Agents under the Agreement or to forefeet the entire amount in default or contravention of any clause of the Agreement.
7. It has been contended before us that Order XXX, rule 3, C. P. C. Applies to the case and therefore, the service of the notice should have been effected in the manner prescribed by the said rule 3. In our opinion Order XXX, C. P. C. Which deals with Suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own, does not apply to the present case.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above we do not find any substance in the appeal and it is accord--ingly dismissed without any order as to costs.