The Court clarified the provisions of Section 96 of CPC and the Explanation to Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, emphasizing the right of the respondent to file a cross-objection against any finding recorded against him, and the entitlement to a court fee refund if paid inadvertently or due to mistake.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants-South Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SECL”) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2016 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.21-B/2012, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the plaintiff’s claim in part entitling him to a total sum of Rs.14,52,761/- payable by the defendants-SECL within a period of two months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, while the cross appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the findings recorded in relation to issues No.1-a & 1-b.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of contractorship carrying out work for various government, semi-government and public sector undertaking, was awarded the work of “hiring of HEMM for excavating (including drilling in all kinds of Strata/overburden) loading into tippers, transportation and unloading the excavated material and slit; dumping, dozing and scraping (removal of bands, preparation) maintenance of haul road, water sprinkling and spreading of materials at the site shown and as per the directives of the Management/Engineer-in-chief at Amera OC project with minimum 1,01,290 cubic meter per month.” The said contract work was allotted to the plaintiff in pursuance to the tender/NIT floated by the defendants-SECL on 11.03.2008, where the plaintiff was declared the successful bidder and work order was issued to him on 20.01.2009 and, an agreement was executed on 10.02.2009 and the plaintiff was to carry out the said work as per the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants-SECL was to provide the land for carrying out the alleged contract work along with the layout, but, since the defendants-SECL has failed to provide the land for the said purpose, therefore, he failed to perform his part of the contract. It is pleaded further that owing to non-performance of the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement by the defendants-SECL, the alleged contract work becomes unworkable and request was, therefore, made for its repudiation vide letter dated 01.06.2009 while raising the final bills amounting to Rs.20,42,704/- and since the bank guarantee furnished by him of Rs.5,89,943/- was never renewed, therefore, after adjusting the same, (Rs.20,42,704-Rs.5,89,943), the plaintiff has claimed total sum of Rs.14,52,761/- along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.

4. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendants-SECL that despite being made available the necessary layout, the plaintiff has failed to perform the work in time as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the alleged agreement dated 10.02.2009 as he failed to make out requisite arrangements of machines for doing the alleged contract work in time which was the essential term of the alleged agreement. It is contended further that a hindrance register was made for the purposes of recording all kinds of obstruction in pursuing the said contract work in which the representatives of both plaintiff and the defendants-SECL have put their signatures and in the said register, a complaint pertaining to the deficiency in providing the land was neither made by the plaintiff nor was it a serious dispute exists between the parties. It is, therefore, contended that it was not the reasons for which the plaintiff has failed to perform his work in time. It is contended further that since the plaintiff has failed to complete the alleged contract work in time, therefore, he is not entitled to obtain the amount as mentioned in his three running bills i.e. 13.02.2009, 03.03.2009 and 31.03.2009 an