Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
The Executive Engineer (Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division) - Appellant
Versus
Ananth Ganapati Bhat - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 100316 of 2017 (MON)
Decided on : 04-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE.
For the Respondent: SRI B.G.INDI, SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, Adv
A civil suit for recovery of money is maintainable despite defendants' claims of jurisdiction issues when sufficient contract evidence supports the plaintiff's claim.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 295 - Recovery of money - The trial court partly decreed the suit finding defendants liable to pay Rs.5,45,648/- with 14% interest, later modified to 12% - Defendants claimed the suit was not maintainable as Zilla Panchayat was not a party - Court found sufficient evidence of contract and work completion (Paras 1, 10, 14).
(B) Maintainability of Suit - The court determined the suit was maintainable despite defendants' claims, focusing on actual recovery rather than the authority under the Act (Paras 12, 16, 18).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction of a Hall but faced issues with payment and possession. The plaintiff demonstrated completion of 95% of the work and had prior litigation regarding possession.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly decreed the suit in part, affirming the plaintiff's completion of work and ownership of the claim amount.
Issues: The court addressed maintainability under Section 295 of the Act, work completion status, and interference with the trial court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere claims of non-completion by the defendants did not suffice without evidence, highlighting the estoppel principle from the earlier suit.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, modifying the interest rate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of money for construction work completed. (Para 1 , 6 , 11) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of completed work and unpaid bills. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on factual disputes and applicability of law. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 18) |
| 4. defendant contested the suit's maintainability and payment obligations. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. interpretation of section 295 and jurisdiction of civil court. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. modification of interest rate and final order. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2017, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in O.S.No.51/2015, thereby the suit filed for recovery of money is partly decreed holding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,45,648/- to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from 21.04.2006 till realization of the amount.
2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit for recovery of money against the defendants stating that defendant No.1 has issued work order to the plaintiff for construction of Shri Hardikar Manjappa Memorial Hall at Banavasi in Sirsi taluka and accordingly an agreement came to be executed on 22.03.2000 and the plaintiff has taken possession of the land and started construction of the Memorial Hall and completed 95% of the said work and 5% of the work is remained like, removal of scaffolding, surplus materials and rubbish from the premises. But in the meantime, defendant No.1 attempted to take possession of the constructed premises without satisfying the bill to the plaintiff of Rs.4,71,526/-. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit in O.S.No.72/2006 for permanent injunction against defendant No.1, but the said suit was dismissed. In the said suit O.S.No.72/2006, defendant No.1 took pleading that the plaintiff has fully completed the construction, therefore, has taken possession. Therefore, the plaintiff in the present suit by relying on the pleading taken in O.S.No.72/2006 that the entire construction is completed, pleaded that defendant No.1 has not honoured the bill of Rs.4,71,526/- and therefore, filed a suit for recovery of money along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
4. In pursuance to the summons served, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement and denied that the plaintiff has completed construction work. Further taken contention that the plaintiff has not completed the construction work, therefore, the bill was not honoured. With thee pleadings, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that due to unavoidable circumstances the contract work entrusted to him could not be completed by him within time?
2. Whether he further proves that the contract work entrusted to him is yet to be completed?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant No.1 has forcibly tried to take possession of the premises contrary to the terms of the contract?
4. Whether he further proves that due to the act of the defendants he has suffered huge monetary loss?
5. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the claim amount as prayed for by way of damages?
6. Whether the Defendant No.1 proves the breach of terms of contract committed by the plaintiff in not completing the work within the stipulated time?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit reliefs?
8. What order or decree?
6. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The defendants have not examined any witnesses and also not produced any documents in support of their contention.
7. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.5,45,648/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of
