The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must prove fraudulent misrepresentation and the failure to successfully install the effluent treatment plant to recover payment.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - Appellant - plaintiff is aggrieved of concurrent findings rendered against him by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012 as well as learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 and consequential dismissal of its suit. Suit for recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the pleadings that defendant No. 1, which is a partnership concern of defendant - respondents No. 2 and 3 agreed to provide installation of an effluent treatment plant in the plaintiff college and hospital on the terms and conditions as agreed upon between the parties on 19.12.2000 (Ex.P7). It was agreed that work at the site would commence within three days of placement of the order. Total period for construction and for commissioning would be a maximum of eight weeks from the date of placement of order. All finishing and site clearance would be completed within 30 days of the period of commissioning. Any clarifications required must be obtained before commencement of work at site/a week prior to the need for such information. It was further agreed that the delays in commissioning would be liable to enforcement of penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- for the first day of delay with further penalty at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per additional delay, subject to maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. After negotiation, the schedule of payment was agreed upon as under:-

(i) 20% with formal order

(ii) 20% after delivery of entire equipment

(iii) 20% on successful installation of all component of Effluent Treatment plant.

(iv) 30% on procurement of Punjab Pollution Control Board on the treated effluent.

(v) 10% on expiry of warranty.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant failed to complete the project within the stipulated period and obtained payment of Rs. 10,34,750/- on fraudulent misrepresentation with a mala fide intention to cause wrongful damage to the plaintiff. The project remained incomplete till February, 2003. Number of components of the Effluent treatment plant supplied to the plaintiff were of unfinished and substandard quality. Number of defects were found in the civil work and component of the plant. The plaintiff faced the risk of criminal action under the provision of Water Act, 1974 and BioMedical Waste Rule 1998 as the plant failed to meet the requirement specified by the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Despite letters and reminders, the defendants failed to complete their part of the contract in terms of agreement and specifically affidavit dated

22.12.2000 (Ex. P9) by defendants No. 2 and 3 (Ex.P9). The plaintiff was thus entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 10,34,750/- alongwith interest and damages.

4. Suit was resisted by the defendants. Written statement was filed taking various preliminary objections. Averments on merits were controverted. A counter claim was filed by the defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 6.80 lakhs alongwith Rs. 2,45,160/- as interest. It was pleaded that the work was executed as per the specifications. It was stated that the plaintiff was satisfied with the work of the defendant and letter dated 03.10.2001 was written to the Director, International Testing Centre and letter dated 20.07.2002 to Environmental Engineer to monitor all relevant parameters of the Effluent treatment plant. Bills were raised for the total amount, however, only part payment was made.

5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the defendants and written statement to the said counter claim of the defendants was also filed by the plaintiff.

6. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleading:-

i) Whether