Fraud allegations require specific pleadings with particulars under CPC Order VI Rule 4; vague pleas rejected. Limitation for work recovery runs from contract-specified final bill settlement date. Privity by direct award despite intermediaries.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 6.6.2018, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been partly decreed and the respondent/plaintiff has been held entitled for recovery of Rs. 20,61,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till the date of filing of the suit and also future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of entre amount.

2. The facts, which emerge in the case, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- against the appellant/defendant i.e. M/s Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director. It was averred in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff is a contractor and he undertakes civil construction for various departments of the government as also for private organizations. The appellant/defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in constructing Sorang Hydro Power Project in District Kinnaur. It was averred that the respondent/plaintiff had been awarded works relating to construction of right abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 mtr. to 0.1830 mtr. of the Sorang HEP (100 MW) in District Kinnaur by the appellant/defendant- company vide letter of award dated 4.1.2007. The said works were required by the appellant/defendant for the purposes of the Sorang Hydro Power Project being set up by it. It was further averred that the respondent/plaintiff got executed the works under the supervision and control of M/s SSJV Projects Pvt Ltd., another company also incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, which company was also preparing the bills for the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff and also arranging payment of the bills for the work done. It was further averred that the respondent/plaintiff completed the work awarded to him to the entire satisfaction of the appellant/defendant in June 2008.

3. The final measurements in respect of the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff were also done by M/s SSJV in December 2009 and a bill on the basis of the measurements so recorded was also prepared but no payment against the same was made to the respondent/plaintiff. The measurements so recorded were also not correct on the basis of the actual work done by the respondent/plaintiff, which had been got measured by him and even measurements were also sent to the appellant/defendant, therefore, the actual amount still payable to the respondent/plaintiff comes to Rs.20,61,045/-. The respondent/plaintiff averred that after completion of the work, he had been requesting the appellant/defendant to make payment, but the appellant/defendant was putting off the respondent/plaintiff on one pretext or the other, which led to issuance of legal notice to the appellant/defendant through his counsel on 15.12.2011 but the payment was still not made to the respondent/plaintiff. He averred that alongwith principal amount, he is also entitled to interest and cost of legal notice and total amount payable is Rs. 29,08,470/-. However, he restricted his claim for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The respondent/plaintiff also submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit against the appellant/defendant accrued to the respondent/plaintiff first when the works were awarded to the