The petitioner society had entered into an agreement with the Public Works Department for the construction work of Orikadavu Bridge Approach Road as per agreement dated 13.08.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner called for a quotation for supply of materials including the red soil. After negotiations, the 4th respondent's quotation was accepted and an agreement was executed on 13.10.2009. Since the 4th respondent did not supply red soil as agreed, the society had to purchase the soil from other sources. Consequently, the society could not complete the work on time. According to the petitioner, therefore, the 4th respondent is liable to compensate it for the loss sustained. 2. The 4th respondent has filed Exhibit P1 Arbitration Case, ARC No.2141 of 2012 before the first respondent claiming an amount of ₹7,98,712/- from the petitioner society. The said arbitration case stands posted for evidence to 18.06.2014.
3. While so, the petitioner has filed ARC No.55 of 2014 claiming an amount of ₹7,67,517/- from the 4th respondent for losses suffered by it. According to the petitioner, both the arbitration cases are required to be tried together. Though the petitioner had moved an application before the first respondent for joint trial of both the cases, the request has been rejected by the second respondent by Exhibit P4. Though the petitioner has challenged the said action before the first respondent, by Exhibit P6, the request has been rejected by the first respondent also. The Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3.
4. Heard. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had suffered losses due to the irresponsible acts of the 4th respondent, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had not initiated any steps for recovering the said loss till 2014. The 4th respondent had filed ARC No.2141 of 2012. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps to put forward their claim. It is only by filing A.R.C.No.55 of 2014 that such a claim has been put forward. Exhibit P3 plaint is dated 31.12.2013. In the meantime, the proceedings in ARC No.2141 of 2012 has proceeded substantially and the same has been posted for evidence on 18.06.2014. The trial of the said case need not be delayed for the reason that ARC No.55 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner. The trial of the later case can be carried on as when proceedings in the said case are completed and the case is made ripe for trial. The contention that prejudice will be caused unless joint trial of both the cases are conducted is without any basis. The petitioner can produce all documents in the case that is ripe for trial and later on pursue their claim in ARC No.55 of 2014 also. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the impugned orders suffer from any infirmity justifying an interference by this Court.
For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj