- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an appeal preferred by the respondent-defendants and set aside the order dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Gangapur City, whereby the learned Magistrate had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Karan Singh Yadav, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction against the respondent-defendants. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-defendant No.3, Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Gangapur City, invited tender for construction of link road from Bhadoti Road to Berkhandi. Accepting the offer of the petitioner, the respondent-defendants issued work order to the petitioner. The petitioner commenced the work in prescribed time. But, after preparation of first running bill, the objection with regard to alignment was raised by the respondents, as the Administrator of the respondent-defendants changed the alignment. Thus, the respondent No.3 stopped the work, and restarted the same vide order dated 29.6.1995. Thereafter, the work was obstructed by the villagers, as there was temple at the disputed site of the work. The petitioner commenced the work leaving the temple. But the respondents withheld the petitioner's payment, and did not release the due payment of work despite several reminders. The petitioner served the respondents a notice and filed a suit for recovery before the Addl. District Judge, Gangapur City. In the meantime, the respondents issued notice for invoking clause 2 and 3 of the Agreement. The petitioner raised objection on the said notice, and requested to withdraw the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for declaring the notice null and void, and prayed that the defendants be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. The respondents filed their reply to the temporary injunction application. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, by order dated 30.10.2009, granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and restrained the respondents from acting upon the notice dated 18.9.1998 till final disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed an appeal against the order dated 30.10.2009 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gangapur City. The learned Judge, by order dated 29.10.2013, set aside the order dated 30.10.2009 and allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Devidutt Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that there is a contradiction between the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 30.10.2009 and the impugned order dated 29.10.2013 with regard to the existence of prima facie case. Whereas, the learned Magistrate has concluded that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the learned Judge has concluded otherwise. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.;