- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC, challenging the order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. (T.I.) Case No.47/2013, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellant and the respondents had executed the agreement being No.57/2010-11 on 15.01.2011 in respect of the work of strengthening of irrigation project under Rajasthan Minor Irrigation Improvement Project at Kot Bandh and Radium Bandh. The said work was to be completed by the appellant within the prescribed time limit and as per the schedule given by the respondents. However, after completion of part of the work, some disputes had arisen between the parties, and therefore, the contract was terminated by the respondents. The appellant-plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The appellant-plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents-defendants from entrusting the execution of the remaining work to any third party. The respondents-defendants resisted the said application denying the allegations and averments made in the application and further contending interalia that the appellant-plaintiff had committed breach of contract by not completing the work under the agreement within the prescribed time limit and the work worth Rs.2.50 crore had remained unexecuted. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of Clause 23 of the agreement, and that the appellant was also given sufficient opportunity of hearing on various dates pursuant to Clause 2 & 3 of the said agreement. It was also contended that the suit was also not maintainable as the appellant-plaintiff had not given statutory notice as required under Section 80 of CPC.
(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr Lokesh Sharma for the appellant that the respondents had not given the opportunity of hearing as required under Clause 2 & 3 of the agreement in question, before cancelling the contract and that the appellant was ready and willing to complete the remaining part of the work. He also submitted that considering the urgent nature of the suit, the appellant-plaintiff had not given notice under Section 80 of CPC, however had made application seeking permission of the trial court to institute the suit without such notice. According to him, the trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the appellant seeking temporary injunction.;