VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) This civil regular First Appeal under sec.96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.60/2005 whereby suit for recovery and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. Briefly stated, a suit for recovery of Rs.2,58,500/- was filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the District Judge, Sriganganagar, which was later on transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar. It was stated that the respondent-plaintiff was registered as temporary Class-C Contractor by order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Division, Sriganganagar vide order dated 01.04.2002.
(2.) It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent applied for as many as 8 tenders including 4 short-term tenders, as mentioned in para 3 of the suit. It was also claimed that the last date for submitting the tenders was 03.04.2002. The rates quoted by the respondent-plaintiff for all 8 works were lowest and therefore, it was awarded 6 works, against which he deposited earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- through Bankers cheque. In pursuance of said selection of the plaintiff, the Executive Engineer, Ganga Canal Link, Sri Ganganagar issued work order for all 6 works as mentioned in the suit and Agreement numbers were assigned to the works. It was stated that the respondent-plaintiff was asked to execute the Agreements with the Executive Engineer within 10 days of the issuance of the work order i.e. on or before 27.05.2002 but the respondent-plaintiff ailed to sign the Agreements. Thus, the defendant-appellants initiated proceedings against the plaintiff-respondent under Conditions No.11 and 13 of the Notice Inviting Tender.
(3.) In the suit, it was claimed by the plaintiff-respondent that as the work orders have been issued and as the defendant-appellant has not permitted to execute the works, therefore, the plaintiff was not at fault and a suit for aforesaid relief was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant, it was submitted that the plaintiff-respondent did not execute the Agreement within the stipulated period i.e. on or before 27.05.2002, therefore, the defendant initiated proceedings against the plaintiff under Conditions No.11 and 13 of the Tender. It was stated that the plaintiff was not in position to execute the works and started correspondence on hypothetical grounds. It was claimed that the plaintiff vide letter dated 05.06.2002 intimated the appellant-defendant that the works allotted to their firm were to be started on 27.05.2002 but they deployed their men and machinery on 21.05.2002 but the work could not be started due to order of the Superintending Engineer.;