Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner State has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd July, 2009, whereby the District and sessions Judge, Dholpur, allowed the application filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and restrained the petitioner -defendant from making any recovery pursuant to clause 2 and 3(c) of the contract. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent -plaintiff filed a civil suit along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the petitioner - defendant for permanent injunction and declaration in the court of Civil Court (Jr.Div.) Badi, Dholpur, stating that the plaintiff -respondent was given work order no. 646 -52 dated 4th January, 2008 for an amount of Rs. 44,84,038/ -. As per the work order, the date of commencement and completion of the work was dated 14th January, 2008 and 13th May, 2008 respectively, but the work was not completed by the respondent -defendant on account of non -cooperation of the Public works Department as also the objection raised by the Forest Department. The petitioner -defendant, therefore, imposed the penalty upon the respondent -defendant and restrained him from participating in further auction to be undertaken pursuant to the notice inviting tenders. Aggrieved with the action of the petitioner -defendant, the respondent -plaintiff filed a civil suit and the trial court dismissed the injunction application vide order dated 29th November, 2008. The respondent -plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Appellate Court set aside the order dated 29th November, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge and issued injunction order against the petitioner -defendant and directed both the parties to maintain status quo.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is revealed that the contract, which is said to have been entered into by both the parties, was neither signed by the Contractor nor by the Executive Engineer of Public works Department. The learned District Judge observed in the impugned order that the first three or four pages were signed by both the Contractor and the Executive Engineer but rest of the 10 -12 pages neither bore signature of Contractor nor the signature of the Executive Engineer. Thus, the petitioner -defendant had no right to impose penalty pursuant to clause 2 and 3 (c) of the contract. Learned District Judge having analyzed all these facts ad longum, found that the prima facie case was made out in favour of the respondent -plaintiff and against the petitioner -defendant and in case, the injunction order was not issued in his favour, the respondent -plaintiff will have to suffer irreparable loss. At the outset, it is relevant to record that the impugned order is not found to be perverse and capricious. Both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo till the suit is decided. Thus, the impugned order is not likely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner -defendant nor will it result in manifesting injustice. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Versus Rajendra Shankar Path reported in, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserved and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised not merely for the grant of relief in any even of the case, but only to be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It has been held that the power is unfettered, but subject to high degree of judicial discipline and interference is to be kept at the minimum. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed, accordingly.;