K. C. Puri, J. - (1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment/ order dated 30.03.2002 passed by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional District Judge, Firozpur, vide which appeal preferred by the contractor now respondent against the judgment/order dated 09.06.1998 passed by Shri D. R. Arora, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozpur, was accepted.
(2.) Briefly stated, M/s Sohan Lal Vipan Parkash (hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor") filed application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozpur, for appointment of arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The case of contractor now respondent is that contractor is a firm. Vide order dated 12 of 27.6.1989, the contractor was given work of urgent repair of door and windows in the staff quarters at Phagwara, Goraya, Phillaur and Ladhowal. There was condition that the work may be stopped at any time by the Executive Engineer after giving seven days notice in writing and further that in case of any dispute regarding the agreement, the matter would be referred to a person to be nominated by the General Manager of Northern Railway. The contractor started the work but the respondents did not allow it to complete the same and the contractor was asked to remove the material from the workshop vide two different letters dated 18.5.1990 and 18.6.1990 and ultimately, Union of India issued order bearing No. 770/W/108- 09 dated 28.10.1991 intimating that the contract has been rescinded vide order dated 17.8.1990. It was further intimated that the work has been further entrusted to some other party at the expenses of contractor amounting to Rs. 21,399/-. Prayer was made for referring the matter to arbitrator.
(3.) The petition was contested by Union of India taking preliminary objections that notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code is not served; the petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that contractor filed suit for mandatory injunction which was withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit and as such, the present petition is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The factum of allotment of work was admitted. It is pleaded that contractor has not started the work and he was requested to fulfill the contractual obligations by various letters including letter dated 08.01.1990. Ultimately, the contract was rescinded vide letter dated 17.08.1990 on the ground that the material used by the contractor was defective and of inferior quality. A penalty of Rs. 21,399/- was imposed on account of excess amount paid to the other contractor.;