Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Abdul Gaffar Wani through LRs. – Appellants
Versus
HPSEB and another – Respondents
RSA No. 356 of 2012
Decided On : 12-09-2018
For the Appellants :Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate
The reduction of the decretal amount without proper reasoning and the rejection of bills solely on the ground of not being verified by the Junior Engineer were unjustified.
Headnote:
Decree Amount - Recovery Suit - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Section 115 - Section 151 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,30,000 against the defendants for work done. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, which was modified by the first Appellate Court, reducing the decree amount to Rs. 3,15,000. The substantial questions of law raised in the second appeal were related to the reduction of the decretal amount without recording reasons, modification of the decree based on records not produced in court, and rejection of bills submitted by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reduction of the decretal amount by the first Appellate Court was without any basis and the findings were perverse. It also held that the bills submitted by the plaintiff should not have been rejected solely on the ground of not being verified by the Junior Engineer. The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, and the findings of the trial Court were upheld.
Issues: Reduction of decretal amount without recording reasons, modification of decree based on records not produced in court, rejection of bills submitted by the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reduction of the decretal amount without recording reasons and based on records not produced in court was unjustified. It also emphasized that the bills submitted by the plaintiff should not have been rejected solely on the ground of not being verified by the Junior Engineer.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, and the findings of the trial Court were upheld.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant (since deceased), who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 06.03.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 41-S/13 of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 13-1 of 09/99, was modified by reducing the decree amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- to Rs. 3,15,000/-.
2. Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,30,000/- against the defendants, wherein it has been alleged that he is carrying on business of a Contractor and undertaking various type of works including loading, unloading and stacking of material and equipment. The defendants No. 1 & 2 required the services of the plaintiff for execution of aforesaid work for their Malyana store. The plaintiff undertaken to execute the aforesaid work, as such, the parties entered into an agreement, dated 15.10.1997, which commenced w.e.f. 01.10.1997 and was to end on 30.09.1998. As per the plaintiff since October, 1997 he started executing the work assigned to him by the defendants. Since October, 1997 to March, 1998, the plaintiff has submitted different bills to the defendants for the work done by him and total amount from the work done by him came to Rs. 4,57,349.56/-. As per the allegations in the plaint, after March, 1998, the plaintiff continued to work for the defendants, despite the fact that they were not paying him for the work executed by him. Accordingly, on 04.05.1998, the plaintiff served the defendants with a notice, wherein he claimed that he is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 11,13,793.09/-, however the defendants paid only Rs. 4,11,021.70/- to him. Thus, for the remaining amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the defendants.
3. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants by filling written statement, wherein it has been averred that the entire work which was done by the plaintiff, has been recorded in the measurement books of the concerned Junior Engineer. It has been further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff is at liberty to see the measurement books maintained by the Junior Engineer to reconcile the quantum of work done by him. It has been denied that any sum is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination and adjudication of the case:
“1. Whether the plaintiff executed the works for defendant in the amount of Rs. 11,30,793.09, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has not been paid the balance amount of the works executed by him amounting to Rs. 7,26,951.39, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff, if so, to what extent? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate? OPP
5. Relief.”
5. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 partly yes, issues No. 3 and 4 in affirmative, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed with costs. Subsequently, the defendants maintained an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was partly allowed and the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court was modified by reducing the decree amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- to Rs. 3,15,000/-. Hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the learned first Appellate Court could have reduced the decretal amount without recording reasons for reducing the amount?
2. Whether the learned first Appellate Court could have modified the decree passed by the learned trial Court on the ba
