The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil 1st Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2020 rendered by the court of Principal District Judge Anantnag in Civil Suit titled Ali Mohd Parray Vs. State & Ors. bearing case No.209400027922015 (D.O.I 09.12.2015, D.O.D 23.01.2020) whereby suit of appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, appellant/plaintiff has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree and has sought it's setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:-

(i) that the appellant/plaintiff executed the work under the nomenclature 'FP Bund Near Machine Ladh at Panchayat Halqa Akad for the year 2012-13 Under MGNEREGA Scheme for Block Khovripora', on account of administrative approval granted by the Govt. for the said work in the sum of Rs. 1,89,497/- out of which appellant has been paid only Rs. 1,36,961/- while balance amount of Rs. 52,439/- has been withheld (not paid) by the respondents which compelled the appellant to file a civil suit before the court of Principal District Judge Anantnag, which after the perusal of plaint and written statements framed as many as 8 issues in the suit, whereafter, appellant/plaintiff examined as many as 4 witnesses to substantiate his claim while respondent/defendants examined only one witness J.E concerned, but ultimately appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial court, the impugned judgment and decree is blatant violation of principles of law, as the same has been passed by the trial court on erroneous appreciation of evidence based on surmises, conjectures and assumptions;

(ii) that the impugned judgment and decree is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed by the trial court against all cannons of law as enough evidence was produced by the appellant/plaintiff before the trial court for substantiating his claim, but the trial court has passed the impugned judgment/decree without any legal basis that too against the fact and evidence on record;

(iii) that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from vice of wrong appreciation of evidence, whereas, the fact of matter is that there is total admission made by respondents/defendants in the suit and there was no legal justification for the trial court to pass the impugned judgment against the weight of evidence.

2. Before deciding the appeal in hand, it is pertinent to reflect the pleadings of the parties. For the sake of convenience, 'appellant' is the 'plaintiff' before the trial court, whereas, 'respondents' are the 'defendants'.

3. Appellant/plaintiff has loaded suit against respondents/defendants way back on 09.12.2015 seeking declaration and recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 52,439/- from the defendants on the grounds, that appellant/plaintiff in the capacity of mate executed work under name 'FP Bund Near Machine Ladh at Panchayat Halqa Akad for the year 2012-13 Under MGNEREGA Scheme for Block Khovripora' for which administrative approval was estimated in the sum of Rs. 1,89,400/-, the bills for realization of payment was prepared by the defendant department, however, the full and final bills was approved for an amount of Rs. 1,36,962/- which was received by the plaintiff, while the balance amount of Rs. 52,439/- has been deliberately and intentionally not paid to the plaintiff. It is averred, that the work was allotted to the plaintiff and completed by him for which he incurred huge expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,89,400/-, the failure on the part of defendants to pay the balance amount due to the plaintiff constrained the plaintiff to serve notices u/s 80 CPC upon the defendants, the remaining/balance amount was not realized by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, and despite repeated requests , failure on part of defendants compelled the plaintiff to commence suit for decree for recovery and mandatory injunction to the extent of Rs. 52,439/- with interest and cost before the trial court.

4. Respondents/defendants appeared before the trial cou