CR No.6414 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6414 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.07.2010 M/s Starrco Engineers & Contractors ..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 4. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned courts below, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 seeking injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the order of cancellation of contract and allotting it to somebody else, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioner, a partnership firm, was allocated a work worth Rs.34,40,91,783/- (Rupees thirty four crore forty lacs ninety CR No.6414 of 2009 2 one thousand seven hundred and eighty three only) for execution. The petitioner firm deposited a security of Rs.68,81,836/- (Rupees sixty eight lac eighty one thousand eight hundred and thirty six only), representing 2% of the contract price. The case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner was that even though the petitioner was performing his part of contract as per the terms of the contract, the defendant/respondents unilaterally and with mala fide intention terminated the contract of the plaintiff/petitioner to help some other contractor. Learned trial court refused the relief of injunction preliminary on the ground that no injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner as he had other equally efficacious remedy of damages etc. At the same time, plaintiff/petitioner was protected to the limited extent, by directing the respondents to measure the work already done by the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned appellate court affirmed the finding of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Mr.Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not challenge the order passed by the learned courts below, and prays that in view of the findings recorded by the learned courts below, holding that the plaintiff/petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, he may be permitted to move an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint to claim the damages for illegal termination of the contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that even CR No.6414 of 2009 3 though specific directions were given for measurement of the work, the respondents without settling the account of the petitioner/plaintiff till date, have fixed a date for auction of the goods of the plaintiff/petitioner lying at the site, to recover damages assessed, though the order is under challenge in the suit. The only prayer made by the petitioner, therefore, is that the respondents be restrained from auctioning the goods of the petitioner lying at the site and he be permitted to lift it. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to get the revision petition dismissed as not pressed, so as to move an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for the amendment of the plaint to claim damages suffered by the plaintiff/petitioner due to termination of the contract, which will be contested by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, oppose the grant of stay prayed for by the petitioner against auctioning of the goods lying at the site on the plea that the liquidated damages assessed against the petitioner, are to be recovered by the department. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner he is allowed to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to move an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for the amendment of the suit for the reason that the suit, as framed suffers from technical defect, in not claiming damages. Prayer with regard to the stay cannot be granted to the CR No.6414 of 2009 4 petitioner at this stage because the matter is not directly in dispute in this revision. In order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, it is ordered that auction of the goods of the plaintiff/petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of 15 days, till the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petitioner is allowed to move the learned trial court for the relief including stay against auction in accordance with law. In case any application is made, it may be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with law. 19.07.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge