( 1 ) WHAT is challenged in this Appeal from Order filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil procedure (the Code for short) is the order dated 5/05/2001 recorded below application Ex. 5 in Special Civil suit No. 350 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). , surat by which application Ex. 5 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code by appellant against respondents restraining them from committing breach of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequential right existing in favour of the appellant and further to restrain the respondents from assigning to anyone the construction work of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (cetp for short) of Sachin Infa-Enviro Limited, respondent No. 1, till disposal of the suit, came to be rejected and thereby the interim injunction granted earlier has been vacated.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is the original plaintiff whereas respondents are the original defendants and for the sake of convenience and brevity, they shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants in this judgment.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, doing the work of Pollution Control Consulting and engineering. Defendant No. 1 is a company for CETP in the area of Sachin at Surat. Defendant Nos. 2 is the Chairman of defendant No. 1 company and defendant No. 4 is a consultant of the above-said project.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the project is of basic cost of Rs. 1950 lacs. The plaintiff and defendant no. 3 jointly filled the pre-qualification tender for the project of CETP and their tender totalling rs. 15,70,57,872/- was accepted and they were informed accordingly. Thereafter defendant No. 3 started the work of civil engineering. According to the plaintiff, at the time of filling tender, it had paid 40% of the tender amount of Rs. 2 lacs of its share by cheque to defendant no. 3 and in this way, the earnest money deposit was given by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, when the tender was sanctioned and letter of indent was given, defendant No. 2 called the plaintiff and asked them to use low quality materials and as the plaintiff asked to give the said change in materials, if any, in writing, defendant No. 2 threatened to remove the plaintiff from the project and the defendants in collusion with each other are not giving the details of work to the plaintiff though repeated requests are made to them by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it is time to start technical work but the defendants are trying to ruin the valuable rights of the plaintiff by which the business reputation of the plaintiff will be affected. So the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for specific performance of contract and tender sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and letter of indent dated 16/01/1999 issued in their favour respectively. It is also prayed to award damage of rs. 2,91,10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and also for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from committing breach of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequential right existing in favour of the plaintiff and further to restrain the defendants from assigning to anyone the construction work of CETP of Sachin Infa-Enviro Limited, defendant No. 1, till disposal of the suit and also mandatory injunction against the defendants to give details about the work and to get the work to be done through the plaintiff.

( 5 ) ALONGWITH the suit, application Ex. 5 is also moved by the plaintiff wherein ad-interim relief is claimed against the defendants for restraining them from committing breach of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequential right existing in favour of the plaintiff and further to restrain the defendants from assigning to anyone the construction work of CETP of sachin Infa-Enviro Limited, defendant No. 1, till disposal of the suit. In the said application, prima f