Back
2026 Supreme(Pat) 292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Anil Kumar, S/o. Sri Devendra Thakur, C/o Sri. Dharmesh Kumar – Appellant.
Versus
State Of Bihar, through the Collector, Patna Collectoriat, Patna – Respondent
First Appeal No.44 of 2004
Decided On : 10-04-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, GP-10
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – In a First Appeal, scope of interference by High Court is wide and co-extensive with that of Trial Court – Appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate, re-assess and re analyse entire evidence on record, both on facts as well as on law, and may arrive at its own independent conclusions – However, where findings recorded by Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are neither perverse nor contrary to material on record, Appellate Court ought not to interfere lightly – Interference is warranted only when findings of Trial Court suffer from manifest illegality, misreading of evidence, or where material evidence has been ignored, resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 14)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII, Rule 1 – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 37, 70 and 73 – Money Suit – Dismissal – Mere proof of supply or receipt, in absence of proof of due inspection and acceptance as per contractual stipulations, cannot ipso facto fasten liability upon defendants for payment of claimed amount – Once supplier establishes that goods were supplied pursuant to a valid contract and same were received and utilized by purchaser without any contemporaneous objection, presumption of due acceptance arises in favour of supplier – In such circumstances, burden shifts upon purchaser to prove that goods were either rejected in accordance with contractual procedure or were not in conformity with agreed specifications – Rejection of goods must be in strict adherence to contractual terms, including inspection and certification and any unilateral or belated rejection, not supported by cogent evidence, cannot defeat a legitimate claim for payment – Opinion evidence, particularly in technical matters, must be supported by examination of expert – Mere production of such report, without substantiated by concerned member of Liability Committee, cannot be made sole basis for non-suiting plaintiff – Trial Court has erred in placing decisive reliance upon unproved report of Liability Committee, without examining its authors or establishing its evidentiary value in accordance with law – Impugned judgment and decree set aside and suit filed by plaintiff/appellant decreed with 9% interest – Appeal allowed with cost. (Paras 18, 19, 23, 27 to 30)
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge- VI, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Money Suit No. 134 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the suit instituted by the plaintiffs (appellants) for recovery of Rs. 5,00,009/- was dismissed with contest but without cost with liberty to the plaintiff to re-agitate his claim before the higher authority of the defendants i.e., the department concerned by placing relevant papers to this context, if the plaintiff so desires.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties where required shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned Trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that they were engaged in the business of supply of electrical and mechanical materials and, in pursuant to purchase orders issued by the defendants-authorities of the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, supplied the required materials as per the terms and specifications of the agreement. The plaintiffs asserted that the materials so supplied were duly received by the concerned divisions and utilized in departmental works without any immediate objection. According to them, despite completion of supply and fulfillment of contractual obligations on their part, the defendants failed to release payment of the outstanding dues. It is asserted that the entire suit amount which is to be realised by the plaintiff against the defendants are duly mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint having explained as the principal amount for the goods supplies to the defendants amounting to Rs 204922/- and the interest @24% per annum since supply upto filing of the suit amounting to Rs 295087/-. However, even the repeated requests and representations by the plaintiff, did not yield them any result, compelling the plaintiff to institute Money Suit No. 134 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 5,00,009/- in toto including the interest accrued, in addition to the other consequential reliefs.
5. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit, denying the material allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff. It was stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not supplied the materials strictly in accordance with the prescribed specifications and contractual terms. It was further stated that upon inspection and examination by the departmental authorities, the materials were found to be sub- standard and not conforming to the required technical standards. It was stated that a liability committee was constituted to examine the matter and, on the basis of its report, the claim of the plaintiff was not found admissible. The defendants asserted that in absence of proper certification and approval by the competent authority, no liability could be fastened upon the department for payment of the claimed amount. Therefore, the Money Suit was liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of pleadings as well as after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
(I) Whether the present suit is barred by any provision of law?
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs 5,00,009/- only and interest @24% per annum till realization against the defendants?
(III) Whether the plaintiff has supplied the said material as per terms and conditions of the supply order and whether the findings hold by the concerned Liabilities Committee are valid and genuine ?
(IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost of the suit or any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?
7. In support of their cases, both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff has examined altogether four witnesses namely, PW-1 Anil Kumar (Plaintiff/Appellant),
