1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.25 of 2009 (Shri Eknath s/o Dharmaji Nimgade v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak and another) Shri S.C. Khati, Advocate for Appellant. Shri A.G. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 28th April, 2009 This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibits 40 and 45 in Special Civil Suit No.1399 of 1997, whereby he rejected the plaintiff’s application for injunction restraining the defendant from causing breach of terms of agreement dated 6-1-1992, and refused to review the order rejecting the application for injunction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is an Architect, who had been engaged by the defendant-Committee for architectural services in construction of a memorial at Mhow, Indore in Madhya Pradesh. In terms of the agreement dated 6-1-1992, the appellant was to act 2 as Architect for which the respondents had given him the requisite authority and had undertaken to make payment for his professional services. He was also to supervise the work in addition to preparing drawings. According to the appellant, a memorandum of understanding had been executed between the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Committee. Thereafter the appellant filed a suit for claiming 5% of the total cost towards his fees, and injunctions to restrain the defendants from reducing his fees, from carrying out the work through PWD, Indore, as also for a direction to continue the architectural services of the plaintiff/appellant. He filed an application Exhibit 40 to restrain the defendant from causing breach of agreement by allowing to take out tenders of inferior material of construction. This application was rejected and application Exhibit 45 for review was also rejected. It is not necessary that the reasons which prevailed upon the learned Trial Judge in rejecting the application for injunction must be upheld by this Court while rejecting this appeal. The learned Trial Judge had refused to rely on xerox copies and, therefore, he had held that the plaintiff, who had to prove breach of agreement, had given no evidence about breach. Apart from whether breach of agreement is proved or 3 not, the question is how the appellant would be entitled to claim an injunction to restrain the respondents from carrying out the work of the memorial. The plaintiff, as a Consultant, would at worst be entitled to his fees. He cannot stop the work, which the owners of the project want to complete. In view of this, no fault can be found with the orders impugned in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Pdl