TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, LEGAL Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing order dated 11.05.2015 in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 whereby, application dated 24.03.2014 has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner company is a Public Limited Company and the respondent is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. In pursuance of tender notice dated 12.08.1988 for installation of 100 TPH froth flotation plant, work was awarded to the petitioner, for which the petitioner furnished three bank guarantees in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties and the respondent sought to invoke bank guarantees. Consequently, Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondent from invoking/encashing the bank guarantees. In the said suit an order for temporary injunction was granted however, subsequently the said order was revoked. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for recovery of amount of 1,88,69,894.93/. The defendant respondent herein appeared in the said suit and filed written statement. When the plaintiff started leading evidence, at this stage application dated 24.03.2014 was filed seeking a direction from the Court to permit the parties to reconstruct file of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and thereafter, permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. The said application has been dismissed on 11.05.2015, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. R. N. Sahay, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents on which the plaintiff relies were filed in the Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and therefore an application was made for obtaining certified copies of those documents. Referring to endorsement made by the registry on the application of the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the registry made an endorsement that those documents are not on record, the petitioner filed an application in Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 seeking a direction from the Court for reconstruction of the record. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed application dated 24.03.2014 in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 for a direction to the parties to reconstruct the record of Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 and after the record is reconstructed, permit the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence.