The main legal point established is that the readiness of a party to go for arbitration after the completion of work by another party allows the court to direct the appointment of an arbitrator.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2003 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Sub-Judge IV at Ranchi in Money Suit No. 11 of 1993 whereby the Sub-Judge allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs-appellant and granted interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondent to proceed with the notice and refer the dispute to the arbitration by appointing an Arbitrator.

4. It is alleged that the Chief Engineer, Lucknow Zone, Military Engineering Service Department invited tenders for construction of one R.C.C. overhead tank of 2 lakh gallons capacity at Khojatoli in the District of Ranchi in the State of Bihar (now in Jharkhand) on rates and terms and conditions provided in the contract. The tender of the plaintiff-appellant was accepted and an agreement dated 18.4.1990 was entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.2 on behalf of the respondent-Union of India. The agreement provided for commencement of the aforesaid work on and from 22.5.1990 and completion thereof by 21.5.1991 which was extended till 31.3.1992 with normal terms and conditions. It is alleged that the plaintiff-appellant commenced its work and took all preparatory measures such as engagement of engineers and other technical personnel, supervisors, labourers and other staff necessary for the purpose, and also obtained the required material, machinery and other equipments. It is alleged that it was obligatory on the defendants No. 2 and 3 to handover the site in question upon which the proposed construction was to be made to and in favour of the appellant within the time prescribed, and to supply the design for construction of various stages beginning with the design of the foundation for the aforesaid construction of proposed overhead tank and to make available to the plaintiff-appellant adequate supply of water and electricity. The plaintiff-appellant submitted that while the work was in full swing, due to various defaults and negligence and delay on the part of defendants No. 2 and 3, which included making available to the plaintiff defective and wrong designs for construction of the aforesaid water tank and failure to supply adequate quantity of water required for construction of the said tank and stopping of work by the Assistant Garrison Engineer, Ranchi for reason of impending change in design of foundation, the plaintiff-appellant had to suspend the work some time in September and the beginning of October, 1991. It was only on 15.10.1991 that the plaintiff-appellant was supplied with the change in design of foundation and the respondents thereupon asked the appellant to restart the work all over again according to the changed design in contravention of the terms and conditions subsisting between the plaintiff and the defendants as per the work order. It is alleged that consequent upon the unauthorized change in the design of the foundation of the said R.C.C. overhead tank under construction as lately as on 15.10.1991 by the change in design on the foundation itself, the whole work would have to be started all over again. On 11.11.1991 the plaintiff-appellant brought to the notice of the defendant No. 2 that the Assistant Garrison Engineer, Ranchi had stopped further progress of the work for an indefinite period till the suspected wrong design was confirmed and rectified. The appellant-plaintiff also protested that the said change in design would result in abnormal increase in the cost of the execution of the said contract and requested for extension of time till 15.10.1992. On 14.7.1992 discussions were held between defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff's partner Roshan Lal Bhatia. The plaintiff-appellant apprised the defendant with the difficulties in the defective designs and change in designs made belatedly. Defendant No. 3 agreed that