1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1345/2007 M/s R.K.Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 8th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Government Advocate. Mr. P.R.Mehta, for the respondents. .... On behalf of Governor of Rajasthan the Executive Engineer, Bhikha Bai Sagwada Canal Division, Mahi Project, Sagwada invited tenders from enlisted contractors of appropriate class for the work of constructing canal from R.D.39966 to 41435M. The tenders were to be received by the Chief Engineer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara upto 03.00 P.M. on 27.1.2007 and the technical bid was to be opened on the same day at 04.00 P.M. As per schedule the financial bid of successful bidder was opened on 9.2.2007 at 04.00 P.M. and the work of contract was assigned to respondent No.3 defendant M/s Heer Singh Choudhary. The plaintiff appellant also a bidder, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction before the court of learned District Judge, Banswara alleging therein that defendant M/s Heer Singh Choudhary was not having requisite qualification for grant of contract concerned. It was alleged that M/s Heer Singh 2 Choudhary was not having experience of required quantity of work relating to stone masonary i.e. of 3500 cubic meters. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed seeking a temporary injunction to restrain defendant (respondent No.3) from acting upon the contract granted. Learned District Judge by order dated 23.3.2007 rejected the application aforesaid, hence this appeal is preferred. The contention of counsel for the appellant to challenge the order impugned is that the trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it, while rejecting the application seeking temporary injunction by ignoring the significant condition relating to eligibility, that the contractor should have quantity experience of stone masonary work for 3500 cubic meters, and defendant M/s Heer Singh Choudhary was not possessing such experience. I have examined the order impugned and also the conditions prescribed under the General Rules, and directions relating to contract of work prescribed with the notice inviting tenders. It is true that in the notice inviting tenders, the experience prescribed is of stone masonary upto 3500 cubic meters, however, the work assigned for execution is only masonary upto 7291 3 cubic meters. Learned District Judge, after considering the conditions prescribed and the requirement of work, reached at the conclusion that no prima facie case exists that may warrant for granting temporary injunction as prayed. The trial court also found that grant of interim order as prayed shall cause much more higher degree of irreparable injury to the public at large and also to the defendant, vis-a- vis the plaintiff. The balance of convenience was also found in favour of not granting the temporary injunction as prayed. The experience desired for granting contract was whether available with the plaintiff or not, it is a question that requires determination by complete adjudication of suit and prima facie it cannot be said that defendant M/s Heer Singh Choudhary was not having masonary experience. The dispute is only with regard to stone masonary experience and not for other masonary experience including brick masonary experience. There is nothing on record on basis of that it can be said that the trial court acted arbitrarily, capriciously or passed an order perverse or contrary to the settled preposition of law. I do not find any abuse or excess of discretion by the trial court while rejecting the application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. 4 In view of it, no interference with the order impugned by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction is warranted. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.