1. Instant memo of appeal has been filed by appellant–M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, against judgment and decree dated 29.12.2015, passed by Learned Principal District Judge Jammu (hereinafter referred to as learned “Trial Court”) on File No. 76/Civil titled as M/s Banke Behari Gandotra Vs. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & another.

2. The judgment of learned Trial Court is challenged on the grounds that same has been passed on assumptions and presumptions; that learned trial Court has committed a great illegality in holding that suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.52,18,756.00 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the case till realization is decreed with costs; that learned trial court has failed to distinguish between rates finalized in new contract of 12.06.2000 with respondent and rates fixed in 2003 and there is no basis for seeking a claim of rates of transportation for the period, from 12.06.2000 to 2003, as it was covered under a different concluded contract; that entire controversy of rates cropped up for the period when there was no contract between 01.09.1999 and 11.06.2000 and appellant had to carry on the work of transportation in public interest in this period due to operation of stay; that the claim cannot be accepted for a rate later than 12.06.2000 under any circumstances; that learned trial Court did not afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to appellants; that impugned judgment is violative of principles of natural justice and it renders impugned judgment bad in law; that by rejecting application seeking permission to lead evidence in defence vide order dated 26.11.2015, learned trial Court has committed a great illegality as grounds set out in order, are not germane to principles of a fair trial with adequate opportunity to respondent in accordance with law; that learned trial Court placed reliance on official note to decree the suit which cannot be treated to be any admission or settlement of claim of the respondent and cannot be treated as legal evidence in favour of respondent; that the findings in this regard are non-est and learned trial Court was not justified to decree the suit on the basis of a letter seeking management approval of D Panda EX OPS. OFFICER PLANT MANAGEMENT 9ACTG0 JAMMU and alleged recommendation by Senior Regional Manager and by saying that it was concurred by DGM Commercial. By treating it as implied admission of claims of plaintiff, a perverse finding has been recorded by misinterpretation of letters and its evaluation as a piece of legal evidence. Thus, it is contended that impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be dismissed with costs.

3. Respondent-firm resists the appeal on various grounds by contending that respondent firm was allotted a contract for transportation of packed LPG Cylinders from EX Jammu LPG Plant to various places from 01.09.1996 to 31.08.1999. It is insisted that fresh tender was floated for transportation contract from 01.09.1999 which could not be finalized by appellant company on account of litigation, therefore, appellant company requested respondent-firm to continue with transportation contract till finalization of new contract. It is also contended that appellant company had agreed to grant the rates finalized in new contract with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.09.1999, and that fresh contract was also allotted in favour of respondent firm w.e.f. 12.06.2000. However, the amount, due to respondent on account of revision of rates, was not paid to respondent, and therefore, he filed a suit, which has been decreed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.2015 and a decree for a sum of Rs.52,18,756.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum has been passed against appellant company.

4. Before discussing the arguments, it would be profitable to give brief facts of the case, which are summarized as under:-

(a) Respondent herein (plaintiff before the learned trial Court) is a