NARAYAN PRUSTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected an application for interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The suit that is pending is for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from proceeding with certificate Case No. 964-C-II-1962 before the Certificate Officer. Kamakshanagar. The plaintiff was a construction contractor and had undertaken to lay roads and raise buildings under the Sub-Divisional Officer of Kamakshanagar on behalf of the tribal and Rural Welfare Department of the State Government. There were two registered instruments and one unregistered instrument in respect of 5 of the items of work and in respect of the last item there was no document at all. The contracts were terminated and extension of time was not allowed, but later on the contractor's representation the orders rescinding the contracts were withdrawn. Time was extended till 30-5-61, but as the contractor did not complete the works as Per the contracts penalty was levied and costs of material were ordered to be recovered alone with interest. The impugned certificate case for recovery of Rs. 1536. 47 was initiated. The plaintiff filed the suit denying his liability and claimed interim injunction pending the suit.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge has taken the view that Section 41 (b) of the specific Relief Act of 1963 is a bar to grant of injunction and as such injunction against proceeding with the certificate case would not be issued to the certificate officer. Against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) MR. S. C. Mohapatra for the plaintiff-contractor who is in appeal before this court contends that the certificate officer is not a court and the learned subordinate Judge has taken an erroneous view of the law. Thus his conclusion about non-maintainability of the relief of the interim injunction is vitiated. According to Mr. Mohapatra. even if injunction is not available by application of order 39. Rule 1 C. P. C. such interim relief could be granted under Section 1511 c. P. C. He next contends that keeping the background of the case in view the balance of convenience is in favour of not allowing the certificate case to proceed till the disposal of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, according to Mr. Mohapatra. took an erroneous view of the law by rejecting the petition for interim injunction. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Government advocate appearing for the respondents contends that the certificate officer is a court and as he is not subordinate to the learned Subordinate Judge the bar of Section 41 of the Specific relief Act has full application and no injunction could be granted.