D.L. MEHTA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th September, 1989, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1.01/89, whereby he confirmed the order of rejection of the stay-application passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Present petitioner filed a suit against the Food Corporation of India & M/s. India Machinery & Company, and prayed therein that the contract given by the Food Corporation of India, to M/s. India Machinery Co. should not be cancelled and tenders should not be invited and if invited no contract should be given to any one. The case of the present petitioners is that the India Machinery Co., was the main contractor and the contract was given by the Food Corporation of India, to non-petitioner No. 2. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a sub-contractor. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me during the course of arguments some documents for my perusal and tried to convinced me that by implication his client was recognised as a sub-contractor. From the perusal of the documents, it seems that the Food Corporation of India, was having correspondence with the present petitioner and there may be an implicit acceptance by the Food Corporation of India, that the petitioner is. a sub-contractor agent of the main contractor to whom the contract was given. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was constructing on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 2. 3. The court-below held that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 1, Food Corporation of India. It was also held that even if it is assumed that there was a privity of contract and there will no irreparable loss to the petitioner and he can file a suit for damages. Both the courts-below declined to grant injunction and being aggrieved with the order of rejection of the stay application for the grant of injunction the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Erroneous decision on the point of facts or a mistake of law may not give jurisdiction to this court to entertain the revision petition in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 115 C.P.C. unless the question of jurisdiction is there. Mr. Erroneous decision on the point of facts or a mistake of law may not give jurisdiction to this court to entertain the revision petition in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 115 C.P.C. unless the question of jurisdiction is there. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Agrawal Chamber of Commerce vs. M/s. Ganpat Lal Heera Lal (l).Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of S. 40 and 42 of the Income Tax Act. Their Lordships have further held that the agent of respondents for that part of the business of the agency that was entrusted to it may be considered and "Privity of contract arose between the principal and the substitute." The case cited by Mr. R.C. Kasliwal, does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner is not a substitute for the construction of the building for which the contract was given to the non-petitioner No. 2. Non-petitioner No. 2, entered into a contract to perform the duties and fulfil the obligation relating to the construction within a stipulated period. Notice was served to the non-petitioner No. 2, that the work has not been completed within the stipulated time as such the contract is liable to be cancelled. After serving the notice to the non-petitioner No. 2 the contract was cancelled and the directions were given for the issuance of the new tenders. There is an accountability of the main contractor and he is liable for damages as the work was not completed within the time. The development work is only suffering as the work is taken by the big contractors and in practice it is executed by the petty sub-contractors. It is expected that ordinarily the work should be done by the main contractor as there is a privity of contract between the two. Mr. Kasliwal, submits that notice was served to the petitioner and it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to serve the notice on his client. It is not necessary to serve a notice to an agent particularly when the notice has been served on the principal. Notice has also been served to the main contractor with whom the Food Corporation of India, has entered into a contract. It is not necessary to serve a notice to an agent particularly when the notice has been served on the principal. Notice has also been served to the main contractor with whom the Food Corporation of India, has entered into a contract. The subcontractor, is coming in it through main contractor, as such he cannot claim that he should also be served with a notice. 4. There is no dispute on this point that the notice was served to main contractor. Mr. Kasliwal, further submits that by implication he has become the contractor. From the perusal of the documents, it seems that the work was done by the client of Mr. Kasliwal, who is petitioner and the construction work has been done by the present petitioner. It creates relation-ship of on agent with the main-contractor, for a particular purpose and the principal contractor does not cease to be the contractor. At the most it can be said that the petitioner has been recognised as a sub-contractor and the position of a subcontractor is just like an agent and he cannot be considered as a substitute of the main contractor. The damages can only be realised by the Food Corporation of India, from the main contractor on account of default committed by the main-contractor in not performing the duties, within the stipulated time. Any correspondence made between the Food Corporation of India, and the present petitioner is just like a correspondence between the agent of the main contractor and the Food Corporation and so the petitioner can be considered it the most as an agent only. 5. Mr. Kasliwal, has also cited before me Sanjiva Raos Contract Act 9th Edition Page 2767. It does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case: In this book it has been held that if the contract only requires a certificate showing the architects satisfaction, the contractor can sue on the contract when he has obtained such a certificate notwithstanding that it does not certify that a sum of money is payable. In this instant case, no question of certificate arose. The question involved is about the completion of the work and to perform obligation within the stipulated period. The Food Corporation, has declined to grant extension and cancelled the contract on the ground of non-performance with the stipulated period. Mr. In this instant case, no question of certificate arose. The question involved is about the completion of the work and to perform obligation within the stipulated period. The Food Corporation, has declined to grant extension and cancelled the contract on the ground of non-performance with the stipulated period. Mr. Kasliwal, submits that there is a practice and if there is a practice it cannot be taken-away. Mr. Kasliwal, has also cited before me the reference of P.2933 of the aforementioned book, it has been mentioned therein. "There may be communications or dealing between the employer and the sub-contractor which may amount to a contract expressed or implied, on the part of the employer to pay the sub-contractor. It is true that under the power of authority, the sub-contractor, can withdraw the amount and can claim the amount of a work which he has performed. The sub-contractor acts as an agent of the main contractor. 6. The rights of the liability of the sub-contractor, should be considered taking note of the rights and liabilities under the law of the main contractor qua the employer. It is an admitted position that the work was not completed within the stipulated period. A notice was served to the Food Corporation to the main contractor and no notice was served to the sub-contractor. In case of substitute, there will be no liability of the main contractor for the payment of damages to the Food Corporation but in a case of agency, the liability will survive and the main-contractor will be liable to pay the damages. In the matter relating to the default in not performing the contract within the stipulated period it cannot be said that the petitioner was a substitute. At the most, it is a case of recognising the sub-contractor as an agent of main contractor, as such no notice was necessary and the notice which was served to the main contractor was sufficient notice as such I am of the view that the court-below has rightly held that there was no privity of the contract, between the employer and the sub-contractor to a great extent and it is not a case of substitution of subcontractor, but it is a case of creating a right of the agency and the subcontractor cannot be treated as a substitute of the main-contractor. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there was a privity of contract and there is a case of substitution of contract between the petitioner and the Food Corporation, even then the petitioner cannot get any benefit of 0.39 R-l and 2, of the C.P.C. and is not entitled to get injunction. Public utility and the public opinion should be considered as an important factor particularly when we think of social democracy. The concept of sub-contractor may be somewhat in-consistant with the ideal of social democracy as it gives an opportunity of exploitation by the main-contractor to the sub-contractor and ultimately resulting in the exploitation of labour and we should think for the social democracy. 7. The Judges are not mason to put brick on the brick but Judges are the architect and the structural engineers of the society and they have taken the oath to preserve the Constitution and to strive towards the achievements in particular the preamble of the Constitution and Chapter 3 and 4 of the Constitution in part. The law of interpretation may require that it should be interpreted for social democracy. 8. The concept of interpretation needs also a change and we will have to adopt a direction of law of interpretation given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mubarak Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of Bombay (2), Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court were discussing the provisions of IPC and their Lordships have held that unless specifically prohibited or otherwise not permissible, the court should interpret the law taking note of the circumstances which are prevailing in the society at the time of interpretation and not at the time when the legislation was enacted. The law of contract was enacted long before and the Constitution has come into force in the year 1950 so the very law of contract will have to be interpreted to serve the cause of society. One will have to keep in mind that this law will have to be interpreted keeping in view the social democracy embodied in our Constitution. Unless there is a social democracy there may not be social justice and there may not be social enquiry. Restoration of the social democracy, social justice is a must for the preservation of the Constitution. 9. Unless there is a social democracy there may not be social justice and there may not be social enquiry. Restoration of the social democracy, social justice is a must for the preservation of the Constitution. 9. People are the real sufferer for the delay in the construction and there is an accountability of the officers/Engineers also and they should feel that they are accountable to the society and ultimately the delay should not ordinarily be condoned in the matter of construction work. For this reason, also if there exists any dispute it is a dispute which can be settled by way of filing of a suit for damages. It is not a case in which the injunction should be granted. 10. Ordinarily, in the matter of breach of contract and particularly, relating to the Constitution and when the specific time has been given for the construction and the construction has not been carried-out within the stipulated period, then the court should be reluctant in the matter of grant of injunction. 11. In the result, I agree with the view taken by the courts-below and I do not find any force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs-