JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

S.C. Das, J.(Oral)

This second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated, 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura in Money Appeal No. 02 of 2009, where under the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura on 23.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 respectively were set aside.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Pradip Chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. N. Majumder for the respondents.

3. This second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether for not making the State as party to the suit, while Director General of Police was made a party, the appellant/plaintiff can be nonsuited?"

In course of hearing learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has prayed for formulating another substantial question of law that the reversal finding of the learned Addl. District Judge is perverse for not considering the evidence on records specially Exbt 1. Considering his submission a further substantial question of law is formulated thus:

"Whether the appellate judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge suffers from perversity for not appreciating Exbt-1 i.e. the completion certificate issued by the Commanding Officer, CRPF?"

4. The case of the plaintiff in short is that she was verbally asked by the respondents to execute some work on emergency basis and she submitted quotations for 11 item of works as was asked by defendant No. 3. She was asked by the defendants to execute the work and, accordingly, she executed all the works and, thereafter,the Officer Commanding of CRPF, 94 Battalion issued A completion certificate on 11.10.2000. The works were verified and measurement was recorded and she submitted bill for an amount of Rs.3,95,008/-. Subsequently on 21.03.2001 the defendant No.2, the Superintendent of Police issued 3 work orders for execution of some particular work amounting to Rs. 1,24,517/-.

That amount was paid to her but the rest amount of Rs.2,70,491/- out of the total amount of Rs.3,95,008/- was not paid and, therefore, she instituted the suit.

5. The respondents contended that the work orders were issued for execution of work valued Rs.1,24,517/-. There was no verbal instruction to execute any more work to the extent of the amount of Rs.3,95,008/and, so, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any such bill from the defendants. It is also contended by the defendants, the respondents herein that the Commandant was not a appropriate authority to issue any completion certificate and, therefore, Exbt-1 was of no value at all.

6. The Trial Court considered the pleadings of the parties and framed four issues namely:

"(I) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(II) Whether the defendants issued work orders in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff performed the work?

(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree along with interest and cost as claimed in this suit?

(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief/reliefs having regard to the circumstances of the matter?"

7. In course of trial both side adduced evidence and the trial Court considering oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit.

8. Aggrieved, the defendants i.e. the respondents herein preferred Money Appeal No.02 of 2009 and by impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and thereby dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal.

9. It is emphatically submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that the State has not been made a party and that is a formal defect and for that defect the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. The plaintiff is an innocent citizen of the State and being a law abiding citizen she has executed the work under the instruction of the defendants and so the three defendants have been m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document