JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) :

1. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2022 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No.8-B/2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein was partly decreed.

2. Henceforth the parties shall be referred as per their description before the Court below.

3. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant herein is the proprietor of the firm namely, M/s Balaji Traders, who was engaged in the business of supply of catering. Respondent No.2 had issued a tender (Ex.-P/2) for supply of the food to the indoor patients admitted in the District Hospital, Ambikapur, District Surguja. The plaintiff/appellant has participated in the tender process by submitting an application and his offer was duly accepted by the defendant/respondent No.2 on certain terms and conditions, and the work order (Ex.-P/3) was issued in his favour on 7.7.2011. Looking to the services of the appellant, he was also awarded additional work of food supply under the scheme namely, “Janani Shishu Suraksha Yojna” vide order dated 26.11.2011 (Ex.-P/4), and the period of contract was from 20.7.2011 to 19.7.2012. The food prepared by the appellant was tested and checked every day for which a taste and quality register was maintained by respondent No.2.

4. The appellant had submitted the bills for the work done during the period 20.7.2011 to March, 2012 to respondent No.2, the details of which are as under:-

Food bill supplied to the indoor patients-

Food bill provided under the Janani Shishu Suraksha Yojna

5. The aforesaid bills were presented before the respondent authorities for payment and process for payment has also been initiated and defendant No.2 had given the information that partial allotment was received from defendant No.1. So, payment will be made early. During the pendency of the bills, the concerned authorities of Human Rights Commission had inspected the food prepared by the appellant on 2.3.2012 and some adverse comments were also made (Ex.-P/8). As a result, the contract and the work order dated 7.7.2011 & 26.11.2011 respectively were terminated vide order dated 3.3.2012 (Ex.-P/18) and security amount of Rs.75,000/- and caution money of Rs.52,000/- had been forfeited, and payment of pending bills was also not paid by order dated 30.5.2012 (Ex.-P/17). The appellant was also blacklisted (Ex.-P/19). During the aforesaid proceedings, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant and without any factual enquiry, the order has been passed and even the pending bills were not cleared by the respondents.

6. Thereafter the appellant had challenged the impugned action of the respondent before this Court by way of WPC No.568/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2014 (Ex.-P/32) with an observation that the writ petition arises out of contract and disputed questions of fact are involved, and the petitioner (appellant herein) may file a civil suit with regard to recovery of the pending bills. Accordingly, the appellant after sending the legal notice under Section 80 of the CPC (Ex.-P/30) had filed a civil suit before the concerned Court for payment of pending bills relating to the period prior to 2.3.2012, am