The plaintiff has the burden of proving their case, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can lead to the dismissal of the suit.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The defendant-appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No.06 of 2000 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II has decreed the suit on contest with costs, for payment of a sum of Rs.3,73,000/- with pendentelite and future interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum by the defendants to the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a registered contractor of the defendant no.1 which is a Central Government undertaking Company and the defendant no.2 and 3 are the officers of the defendant no.1. On the instruction of the defendant no.1 through its officers in the year 1993-94, the plaintiff was engaged for plantation of trees in the area of the defendant no.1. It is also the case of the plaintiff that keeping in view the experience of the plaintiff in plantation work of trees, he was asked to take up trees plantation work in B & K area of the defendant no. 1, at the rate of earlier awarded work at Kathara. The plaintiff accepted the said offer and in pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiff planted 20,000 trees and also did 200 metres fencing work on the quarry no.2 near the crossing of Jawahar Nagar and P.W.D. road for which a detailed map was prepared. Some of the trees planted by the plaintiff died. The plaintiff replaced the same in the year 1996 and the defendant no.3 assessed the cost of plantation at Rs.3,73,000/- and submitted a report to Project Officer of the defendant no.1-Company. The plaintiff demanded the payment vide letter dated 08.09.1996 and the proposal was submitted by the defendant no.3. Thereafter, several reminders were sent by the plaintiff. Lastly, the plaintiff through his Advocate also sent a notice on 03.08.1999 and in reply to the said notice, the defendant no.2 gave a vague report. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,73,000/- with interest till realization from the defendants.

4. After notice the defendants appeared and besides the usual defence, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not a registered contractor but he has done some tree plantation work at B & K area and other areas also on the basis of tender and contracts. The defendants further pleaded that there was no tender proceeding or award of work/agreement for the plantation of trees between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. The defendants further pleaded that as per the norms of the defendant no.1-Company and prevailing rules, it is not justified to get the work done by any contractor. The defendants further pleaded that none of its officers ever pressurized the plaintiff for tree plantation in the year during 1993-94. The defendants denied of having given any order of work to the plaintiff and also pleaded that the plaintiff did not ever submit any letter of acceptance of the work order about plantation of 20,000 number of trees or 200 metres of fencing work in quarry no.2 near the crossing of Jawahar Nagar and P.W.D. road. The defendants did not have any record of detailed map prepared or the plaintiff having replanted the plants which died or for that matter any assessment of the cost of work done by plaintiff at Rs.3,73,000/-. Hence, the said claim of the plaintiff is not acceptable to the defendants. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff did not make any demand for payment or any work done during 1993-94. The defendants admitted of having replied to the notice sent through his Advocate by the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of rival pleading of the parties, learned court below framed the following seven issues:-

(i) Is the suit as framed and filed in its present form maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Is the suit barred under the Specific Relief Act?

(iv) Is the suit barred by the Law of Limitation?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.3,73,000/- with i