Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 300
N THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Smita Das De, JJ.
Sk. Salim –Appellant
Versus
Eastern Coalfield Ltd. & Ors.-Respondent
F.A. 266 of 1998
Decided On : 16-07-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Amitava Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajes Jana, Ms. Arpita Saha, Ms. Antara Das
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty
Party alleging a fact must prove it; burden of proof rests with the claimant, which the appellant failed to meet.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act - Section 70 - Suit for recovery of money for work done as a contractor - Appellant claimed payment for work performed based on assurances of the defendant's agent - Court found no clinching evidence to support the claim that extra work was performed or assurances given by the agent for issuing a work order. (Paras 14, 15)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - It is trite law that he who alleges must prove the fact; the appellant failed in his burden to substantiate claims and prove entitlement to payment. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a contractor who alleged he performed emergency work at the colliery upon assurances from the defendant's agent. The appellant's claim for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was denied by the defendant, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the appellant did not substantiate his claims of extra work or guarantees from the agent, and the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit was justified.
Issues: The court addressed whether the appellant was entitled to the claimed amount based on the alleged completion of work and assurances for a work order.
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required to establish his claims of work done that warranted separate payment as asserted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant filed claim for payment under alleged work order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of assurances and work order discussions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendant denied any such agreements or assurances. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. insufficient evidence from appellant to support claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. burden of proof rests with appellant; claims were unproven. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
Judgment :
Smita Das De, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff being the appellant herein against the decree dated February 20, 1997 passed by the Asstt. District Judge, Asansol in a suit filed for recovery of money and other reliefs.
2. The fact emerges in brief that the appellant is a registered contractor of the defendants being the respondents herein and for the purpose of meeting emergency work at Naba Kajora Colliery No. 7 pit for roof support of drift, the appellant was advised by the Agent, Naba Kajora Colliery, being the Defendant No. 4/respondent, to perform the work for the emergency purposes and was being assured by the defendant No. 4 that the work order would be placed as per negotiated rate. Against the backdrop of the case the issues in the instant case are as follows:
i. Whether the appellant is at all entitled to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of the alleged completion of the work done in support of the earlier work done.
ii. Whether the appellant performed the work upon request of the Agent of the Colliery upon assurance of issuing work order as alleged by him in the plaint.
3. It is contended by the appellant that as per the request and assurances of the said defendant No. 4/respondent, he started the work on May 9, 1992 and completed the job. Whatever labourers were supplied by him against the said job has been mentioned and noted in some sheets of paper which bears the signature of pit Manager and Senior Overman and mining Sardar. It was also contended by the appellant that a Tender Notice for all the three items were invited and in response the appellant submitted a Quotation on August 19, 1992. The appellant for regularizing the contract were asked to attend the office of the agent and was assured that the work order will be placed as per negotiated rate and the meeting for the same would be held on September 7, 1992.
4. Though the appellant was assured that the work order would be placed after the meeting dated September 7, 1992 but no work order was issued and the appellant by that time completed the work and requested for issuing the work order for regularizing the matter. But the defendant No. 4/respondent issued a letter dated November 15, 1992 / December 10, 1992 by making false charges against the appellant and it was falsely stated that the tender was only an enquiry tender, and it was floated with a view that if the alleged proposal of diverge of drift contractual and not accepted by the higher official, then the same could not be done departmentally. As a matter of fact the same was never done departmentally and it has been done and completed by the appellant. Thus the appellant has become entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- but in spite of demand raised by the appellant, the respondent/defendant avoided making payment on false pretext, although the appellant requested to settle the matter amicably but defendant has failed and neglected to pay and settle the same amicably and the defendant is wrongfully withholding the said amount.
5. On the other hand, the defendant filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia contended that the appellant has no cause of action in the suit. It has been admitted by the defendant that the appellant was awarded the contract for execution of the drivage job in 33 and 35 rise No. 7 pit of Naba Kajora Colliery of the defendant by hand cutting as per work order no. NK/Agent/EE(C)/Survey/92/148, dated September 14, 1992 and work order no. NK/Agent/EE(C) /Survey/92/149 dated September 14, 1992. It has been denied that the defendant N
