Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 195 (JHR)

Mithila Sharan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-15

POONAM SRIVASTAV

body2011
Order This Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by Sub Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 86/2010 refusing injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 2. The Suit was instituted in the Court of Sub Judge claiming relief for a decree of Rs. 1,40,83,123/- (Rupees One" Crore Forty Lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Twenty Three only) calculated towards payment of the plaintiffs and detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint. The application for interim injunction was on the ground that certain materials used in the building work and machinery etc. have been taken away by the defendant-Executive Engineer functioning under the Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The plaintiff/appellant claimed that he is a registered builder and a contractor and was equipped for making construction on behalf of the Building Construction Department. Government of Bihar and Jharkhand. He was attributed the work of construction of residential/non-residential building of proposed Home-Guard Regional Training Institute, Hazaribagh with 'water supply and sanitary installation and internal electrification at the estimated cost of Rs. 4,11,84,883.00. Some earnest money was also deposited. Work order was issued on 30th November, 2005 vide order no. 3135 by the Executive Engineer. 4. The claim of the appellant is that he had completed almost major work but he has been stopped by the Engineer incharge and his various machineries and equipments used for the construction have been detained and locked and he is not being allowed to take them away and this has resulted him in an exorbitant loss which he is entitled to be compensated. The interim injunction is for the release of the machinery and other equipments etc. 5. The application for interim injunction has been rejected. The Court, after examining the materials on record as well as the other documents, arrived at a conclusion that the claim has been made falsely since his work was not in accordance with the terms of the agreement and he was questioned. The plaintiff flatly violated the terms of contract and abandoned the work after September, 2009 without any rhyme or reason causing huge loss to the State. 6. The plaintiff continuously neglected the work and whatever work he did, did not meet the specifications of the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff flatly violated the terms of contract and abandoned the work after September, 2009 without any rhyme or reason causing huge loss to the State. 6. The plaintiff continuously neglected the work and whatever work he did, did not meet the specifications of the terms of the agreement. The Court below was of the view that the plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a prima facie case and consequently the balance of convenience did not tilt in his favour and there was nothing to substantiate that he will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in the terms of money. 7. A bare perusal of the pleadings as well as the injunction application, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the prima facie case is not established and the claim of his payment is also not substantiated and in my view, the Court below did not commit any illegality whatsoever in refusing interim injunction. 8. I have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone through the entire records and I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Court below. The injunction application was rightly rejected. Unless the appellant could substantiate his irreparable loss and balance of convenience after establishing a prima facie case, he is not entitled to any interim measures by way of injuncting the State or release of certain articles which he claims were detained by the Department. 9. Learned counsel has also tried to place certain extracts of the rejoined affidavit on behalf of the State which cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating upon the order which has been challenged in the instant Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. No good ground for interference is made out. 11. The instant appeal lacks merits and is therefore dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.