1 ao152.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 152 OF 2011 Deepak Daulatlal Jaiswal, Age: 40 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. Biyaninagar, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...APPELLANT VERSUS The Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli, through its President, Akola Road, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 14-07-2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli, thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2010. 2. The appellant herein - original plaintiff 2 ao152.11 filed Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2010 thereby seeking relief in the nature of direction to the defendants, to pay remaining amount 11,00,000/- as per R.A. Bill No.4/2 to the plaintiff with 18% interest from the date of bill its its full realization alongwith future interest and also direction may be given to the defendants to pay Rs.4,00,000/-towards damages to the plaintiff. In the said suit, the application was filed praying therein injunction against the defendants that the defendants be restrained by way of temporary injunction from terminating the contract with the plaintiff and further restrain from entering into new contract with anybody else, with respect to disputed construction till final disposal of the suit. 3. The trial Court after hearing the parties and after recording the evidence, recorded findings that, in case such relief is granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the defendants. 3 ao152.11 Therefore, the application below Exhibit-5 came to be rejected. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, 90% work has been completed by the appellant. Since there was no timely payment as agreed between the parties by the defendants, there was delay in completing the construction. However, the defendants extended time to complete the work. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the grounds taken in the Appeal from Order and the contentions raised before the trial Court and submitted that, the appellant is ready to complete remaining construction work immediately. However, the defendants have withheld payment of Rs.11,00,000/- as per R.A. Bill No.4/2. It is further submitted that, the appellant has also carried out additional work as per requirements of the defendants. Therefore, total recovery of Rs.11,00,000/- and interest thereupon and also 4 ao152.11 other dues have not been paid by the defendants. Therefore, the defendants may be restrained from allotting remaining work to third party or terminating the work order of the appellant. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the grounds taken in the Appeal memo, annexures thereto, impugned judgment and order assailed in this Appeal from Order. In Para-4 of the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court after going through the agreement observed that, as per terms of the agreement the plaintiff was to complete the work within given time but the plaintiff has not completed the entire work in the time limit given in the contract though the time was extended by the defendants. 6. So far the dispute regarding payment of bills, the trial Court has observed that, the said prayer of the plaintiff can be considered in 5 ao152.11 the suit and after deciding such suit, the plaintiff is otherwise entitled, he will get his dues. The trial Court has considered averments in the application and upon appreciating rival contentions came to definite conclusion that, if such relief of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, in that case, great inconvenience and irreparable loss would be caused to the defendants. Therefore, in my opinion, the view taken by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli is after appreciating the rival contentions and evidence brought on record by the parties. Since the right asserted by the appellant herein is arising out of the contract and reliefs which he has claimed in the suit, can be addressed in the suit itself. Putting any restraint on the respondents either from withdrawing the work from the appellant or allotting the said work to other persons, would certainly cause loss to the respondent, since the cost of construction is increasing day by day and 6 ao152.11 such construction work is required to be completed within stipulated period. 7. Therefore, for the reasons aforestated, I do not find any case for interference. Hence, Appeal from Order stands rejected. . However, since the controversy involved in this suit can be adjudicated finally by the concerned Court within stipulated period, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli is directed to expedite the hearing of the Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, within six months from today. It is needless to mention that, the plaintiff or the defendants should not asked for any unnecessary adjournments unless there is extraordinary circumstance for seeking adjournment. Parties to co-operate the concerned Court in the disposal of the Special Civil Suit No. 62 of 2010. 7 ao152.11 . Any observations made in this order or in the order impugned in this Appeal from Order would not come in the way of the appellant since those observations are made only for the purpose of deciding the application for temporary injunction, while prosecuting the suit. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11