RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MOOL CHAND JANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant Revision Petition arising out of an order of Injunction passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 26.8.91 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff petitioner and in the process reversing the order dated 11.2.91 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4949/-, which according to the plaintiff non-petitioner was due to him towards the balance amount of contract. The plaintiff non-petitioner has alleged in the suit that he was given a contract for the construction of R-4 Type Quarters at Jamuwa Ramgarh. The work order was issued on 4.2.85. The work was to be completed within 5 months and the estimated costs was Rs.57,864.90. According to the plaintiff non-petitioner he started the work and presented two running bills for the work already completed by him. The Defendant Petitioner, however, did not make payment of the running bill and therefore, the Plaintiff non- petitioner could not complete the work. After about 5 years the Rajasthan State Electricity Board invited fresh tenders for completion of the rest of the work at the cost and risk of the plaintiff non-petitioner. The plaintiff non-petitioner claimed that the entire responsibility for non-completion of the work was of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and he had a right to recover the remaining amount. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff-non-petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction with the prayer that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board the restrained from getting the contract completed at the cost and risk of the plaintiff non- petitioner and it be restrained from adjusting the amount in lieu of damages which might have been suffered by the Board.

(3.) The Defendant petitioner contested the application filed by the plaintiff non-petitioner. In the reply, the Defendant petitioner stated that although the plaintiff was required to submit the running bills every month, he did not submit the running bills in time. When he submitted the running bill for the work done in March, 85, a sum of Rs.13,892.11 was paid on 13.4.85. For the month of April, 85 the bill was submitted in the month of May, 85 and at the same time the plaintiff non-petitioner stopped further execution of the contract. The payment in respect of that bill for Rs.17,157.30 was made on 26.7.85. The plaintiff non-petitioner did not complete the work despite nine letters written to him between 23.5.85 to 1.10.86. In that situation, the defendant petitioner was left with no option but to get the work completed at the cost and risk of the plaintiff non-petitioner. For that purposes fresh tenders were invited and the work was got done. The defendant petitioner asserted that the plaintiff non-petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the form of temporary injunction because neither there was prima facie case in his favour nor any irreparable injury will be caused in him on account of non-issue of injunction.