- (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 13th January, 2014 in Title Suit No. 07 of 2011 whereby the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest. Let us now consider the merit of this appeal in the facts of the present case.
(2.) The plaintiff/appellant was engaged by the defendants/respondents for carrying out the maintenance works inclusive of sanitary and plumbing works in respect of the factory of Gluconate Health Limited situated at premises No. 1, Health Institute Road, Kolkata-700065. A work order was issued by the defendants/respondents on 9th March, 2010 by permitting the plaintiff-Company to execute the maintenance work as per the said work order. In course of execution of such maintenance work, some disputes cropped up between the parties. As a result, the maintenance work as per the said work order could not be completed by the plaintiff/appellant.
(3.) Since the disputes cropped up between them were not settled and before settlement of such disputes, the defendants/respondents were trying to appoint some other agent for completion of the remaining part of the unexecuted work, the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit praying for a declaration that the work order bearing No. MD/GHL/310/09-10 dated 9th March, 2010 issued by the defendants/respondents in favour of the plaintiff/appellant is still subsisting whereby the plaintiff/appellant has acquired the valuable right to continue and/or complete the work of the proposed building of the defendant no.1. A further declaration was also sought for to the effect that the defendants/respondents have no manner of right to engage any third party or parties for completion of the works under the said contract. A decree for realisation of a sum of Rs.4,63,628.27p. together with interest was also claimed in the said suit. A decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendants/respondents from engaging any third party or parties to complete the unexecuted work of the proposed building under the work order issued by the defendants/respondents on 9th March, 2010. Other incidental reliefs were also claimed in the said suit.;