The plaintiff was entitled to receive the payment for the work done and the defendants could not deny interest on delayed payments based on Clause 9 of the NIT.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, (Oral) J. - The present decision disposes of five regular first appeals assailing five judgments all dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in five different recovery suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the RFA 318/2021 are being referred to and the parties will, hereinafter be referred to as per their position before the learned Trial Court.

3. The present regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 178/2017. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,54,848/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 26.01.2015.

4. The defendant no.2/The Executive Engineer (M-1), City Zone, NDMC invited tenders on behalf of defendant no.1/NDMC for the improvement of lane in Gali Imam Wali by pdg. RMC in ward no.79, City Zone and Improvement of Channel and approach to Park at Parade Ground road in Ward No.79, City Zone. The plaintiff approached the defendant no.2 for carrying out the said work and the defendant no.2, after being satisfied that the plaintiff fulfilled the requisite conditions for carrying out the aforesaid work, awarded the work order in his favour on 28.02.2014 and 20.05.2014 for which purpose the parties entered into two agreements on 06.03.2014 and 31.05.2014. The plaintiff completed the aforesaid work within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the defendant no.2 and without any negative remark in the period prescribed for the defect liability.

5. Upon completion of the work, the defendant no.2 made the final measurement of the work and all the bills pertaining to the aforesaid work orders submitted by the plaintiff were duly passed and recorded in the measurement books of the defendant no.1. However, since no payment towards the final bills was received by the plaintiff and that too despite repeated representations and legal notice, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the outstanding payment of the final bill with interest.

6. The suit was defended by the defendant/appellant by filing its written statement wherein it was inter alia urged that as per the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter, NIT), the payment of bills was dependent on availability of funds with defendant no.1 from time to time in the particular head of account. It was further averred that any payment to the plaintiff was only to be made after clearance of the past liabilities of the defendant and therefore the plaintiff could not be paid till sufficient funds were available with the defendant. It was finally claimed that the plaintiff, having accepted the general conditions of the NIT, was bound by Clause 9 of the same which clearly provided that the payment would be released subject to the availability of funds with the appellants.

7. After completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,07,497/-? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover pedentelite and future interest @12% p.a. ? OPP

3. Relief?

8. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned judgment has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,54,848/- with interest @6% and has directed that interest will be payable after expiry of 6 months of the date of the passing of the bill. The relevant findings of the learned Trial Court read as under-

'14. ISSUE NO. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If yes, then at what rate and for what period?

15. The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. The present case pertains only to work order no. 1 an