1. - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that the respondent Public Works Department had invited applications for construction and upgradation of roads. The appellant participated in the tender process. Since its bid was the highest, it was accepted. The work order was issued in its favour on 16.12.2010 for the work amounting to Rs. 66,16,652. It was claimed that the appellant completed the work of Rs. 10,00,000 but neither running bill was prepared, nor payment has been made by the respondents. Meanwhile since the proprietor fell seriously ill, the remaining work could not be completed. The respondents were informed about the same but the respondents did not consider the same. Instead, they cancelled the contract. Subsequently, the respondents awarded the contract to respondent No.6 M/s. Bihari Lal Sharma for the remaining work. The respondents issued order of recovery of Rs. 60.06 lacs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,61,065 upon the appellant; they also passed an order for forfeiting the security money and material. The appellant in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, inter-alia, prayed for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents to restrain them from recovering the penalty amount, and for direction not to proceed with the remaining construction of work which was allotted to the appellant. By order dated 25.07.2012, the learned Judge has dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

3. Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction wherein he had clearly claimed that he had done part of the work assigned to it by the respondent. However, due to serious illness of the proprietor, the firm could not carry out the remaining part of the work. As soon as the proprietor became well enough to resume the work, the appellant filed an application before the PWD authorities requesting them to permit it to complete the remaining work. However, the permission was never granted. Instead, the department assigned the remaining part of the work to respondent No.6 M/s. Bihari Lal Sharma. According to the learned counsel, while assigning the work to M/s. Bihari Lal Sharma, the Public Works Department did not invite any tender. Therefore, it assigned the work while violating its own procedure. Secondly, the Public Works Department was not justified in imposing a penalty upon the appellant for the unfinished task. Thirdly, it was not justified in forfeiting the security amount. According to the learned counsel, although substantial question of law have been raised by the appellant, the learned Judge has mechanically dismissed his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Thus, this Court ought to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned order.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the contract entered into between the appellant and the Public Works Department, the appellant was to complete the work by 25.04.2011. However, as the work was not completed by the said date, the Public Works Department had repeatedly requested the appellant to complete the work. Although the appellant claims that the proprietor was ill during the period, it did not inform the department about his ill-health. Moreover, it did not request the department that the time period for completion of the project should be extended. It is only subsequently that the firm filed an application wherein it requested that it may be given seven days time to restart the work.