The Court emphasized the importance of clear pleadings and documentation in government works contracts, and ruled that inaction by the defendants after prolonged periods cannot be accepted in a Court of equity.

JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2008 and 19.06.2008 respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 37 of 2003.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Niharendu Majumder for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondent.

3. The respondent as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted the suit inter alia contending that Sub Divisional Police Officer (for short, SDPO), Sadar, now Lembucherra, as per instruction of Superintendent of Police (SP, for short), West Tripura asked her to get some construction/repairing works of barracks etc. for the Assam Rifle Jawans of 26 Assam Rifles at Abhicharan Camp and also asked her to execute the works on emergency basis and as per the verbal instruction of SDPO, she took up the 11 items of works for construction/repair at Abhicharan Camp of 26 Assam Rifles and completed the works within the stipulated time as desired by the SDPO. After the works were completed in the month of June, 2000, Major/Captain Adjutant of 26 Assam Rifles communicated a completion report in writing to SP, West Tripura, Agartala. After receipt of the completion report, the works were verified by an officer of SP, West Tripura with an Engineer and they were satisfied with the works executed by the plaintiff and thereafter measurement of the works were made and entered in the Measurement Book (for short, M.B.). The plaintiff thereafter submitted bills amounting to `7,31,329/- for all those 11 items of works to the SP, West Tripura through SDPO, Sadar and was expecting payment within short time but received no response from the defendants. The plaintiff contacted with the authorities of the Police department for her payment but got no fruitful result. Thereafter, Addl. SP(Rural) by writing a letter dated 21.01.2002 asked her to remain present in a meeting on 22.01.2002 at 12-30 hours in the chamber of the Addl. SP (Rural) and accordingly, she attended the meeting and convinced the authority that the works were executed to the full satisfaction of the authorities for which Major/Captain Adjutant of 26 Assam Rifles communicated a completion report to SP, West Tripura and the measurement of the works were made and recorded in M.B. and she insisted payment but even thereafter payment was not made as per her demand. On 20.08.2003 she made a written application to the SP, West Tripura for making her payment and demanded that in case the payment not made immediately, interest @15% per annum will be charged. Even thereafter payments were not made and so she served notice under Section 80(1) of CPC on 1st September, 2003. But after lapse of statutory period of notice, payments were not made and hence, she filed the suit for recovery of the amount of `7,31,329/- with interest @15% per annum from the date of completion of the work.

4. The defendant-appellants (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that there is nothing to show that any codal formalities were observed and any work order was issued by the competent authority to the plaintiff to execute the works on emergency basis. SDPO never instructed the plaintiff to execute any such work at Abhicharan camp of 26 Assam Rifles. There was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants for execution of any work in writing. Since no codal formalities were observed and no work order was issued, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit. It is further contended that SP, West Tripura, vide Office Order No. 1(17)/SP/PS/W/98/1764-69 dated 14.12.2001 constituted a committee consisting of Sr. officers of the police department and they verified the works alleged to have executed by the plaintiff and submitted their report in writing on 29.06.2002 observing that the