RAMESHWARAM MINERALS Vs. ANSH CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed on 27/05/2019 under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C. against the order dated 17/05/2019 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 127/2019 by which the learned Lower court partly allowed and partly dismissed the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.

(2.) It is not disputed that the Civil Suit No. 127/2019 has been filed on 7/05/2019 by the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant is a Proprietorship firm inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of 'gitti through mechanized crusher. Respondents were awarded the work contract for upgradation of Raipur/Sitapur/Panni road under Sub Division Mangawan, District Rewa vide work order dated 1/05/2018 issued by the Public Works Department, B/R Division No. 1, Government of M.P., Rewa. Respondents were in need of nearly 4,00,000 Metric Tonnes of "gitti" and the appellant was already in the business of manufacture and sale of "gitti", therefore, an agreement (M.O.U.) was executed between the appellant and the respondent on 20/08/2018 wherein, it was agreed between the parties that on the land bearing Khasra No. 152/3 admeasuring 4.01 hectares situated at Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa, in the ownership of the respondent, the appellant would establish a stone crusher and would extract/mine/stone from the aforesaid stand and after crushing and manufacturing of "Gitti", would supply the same to the respondents for use in the work contract in question. It was also agreed in the aforesaid M.O.U. that the entire cost of construction and establishment of the plant/machinery/crusher would be incurred by the appellant and nearly a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- would be paid by the respondents to the appellant towards mobilization advance for which ten post dated cheques of Rs. 15,00,000/- each would be given by the appellant to the respondents and respondents would be entitled to encash the same as per understanding between the parties towards refund of the mobilization advance. As per condition enumerated in the said M.O.U. an indemnity bond was also executed between the parties.

(3.) On 29/04/2019, a letter was issued by the respondents to the appellant alleging that inspite of assurance, the appellant had allegedly defaulted in making the crusher operational as per M.O.U. dated 2/04/2019 and, therefore, the respondents had decided to take over the crusher from the appellant w.e.f. 1/05/2019.