Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1104
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J.
Sri Edla Kanaka Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I&CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
A.S.No.346 OF 2020
Decided On : 17-09-2025
For the Appellant : Sri Ponnamm Mallaiah Goud
For the Respondent: Government Pleader
An appellant must present sufficient pleadings and evidence for recovery claims in civil suits, and the trial court's dismissal due to lack of proof can be upheld.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Recovery of sum - Suit dismissed by Trial Court which was affirmed by High Court - Plaintiff, an Ex-Chairman of Water Users Association filed suit for recovery of Rs.6,24,549/- for executed works but failed to maintain proper pleadings - The recovery was made as per government memos following verification, which was deemed valid by the court. (Paras 4.3, 6, 9.1, 14, 27)
(B) Locus Standi - The court found no issues with the locus standi of the plaintiff; however, suit was dismissed due to improper foundation and lack of material particulars. (Paras 15, 27)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-plaintiff executed civil works under a contractual agreement with the government but faced recovery of amounts deemed illegal. The trial court dismissed the suit for non-maintenance of pleadings and lack of sufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the trial court's reasoning was valid and the judgment and dismissal did not require interference.
Issues: The principal issue was whether the plaintiff provided adequate evidence for recovery of the amounts claimed and if the dismissal by the Trial Court was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove his claims, and the trial court adequately considered the evidence presented, leading to a justified dismissal of the case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning and findings (Para 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. arguments presented by parties (Para 10) |
| 4. key legal findings and rationale (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.153 of 2016, dated 09.07.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants in the suit (OS.No.153 of 2016).
3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,24,549/- against the respondents-defendants with interest @ 18% per annum.
4.1. The appellant-plaintiff is the Ex-Chairman of Water Users Association (herein after called as WUA), Veldi and executed works under Veldi Ayacut in Sri Ram Sagar Project (herein after called as SRSP), entered into contract with respondent No.4-defendant No.4 for the execution of 10 civil works.
4.2. The works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff through the agreements vide Col.No.4 of the Annexure in the plaint. The said agreements were concluded by and between the appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 on behalf of the Government to execute the works. The appellant-plaintiff has commenced the work with an intention to complete the same within the agreements period and has done the same without compromising in the quality and quantity. The in-charge Field Engineer was satisfied and recorded the measurements as per actuals, all the material supplied and works executed have been checked and measured by the competent Engineers. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/A1/2010-22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011, after the lapse of about 3 years from the date of execution, instructions have been imparted to inspect the works. The fact of the matter is that the works have been executed and recorded in different Measurement Books (herein after called as MBs) during 2008-09 itself. The in-charge Field Officers concerned have recorded the measurements.
4.3. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad has formulated inspection teams for Civil and Mechanical works involving the team of Engineers working under other than the Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, Stage-I, Hyderabad. The civil works are 12 in number, they have been executed to the best satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Works were measured and checked by the competent authority and also by Superintending Engineers of other circle. The quality control authorities have also inspected the works and no remarks were raised, they were satisfied with the execution of works. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26, dated 16.06.2011 issued guidelines regarding making payment to WUAs. As per Para No.2 of the said Government Memo, two foremost conditions have to be satisfied for making payments i.e., a) Existence of a bonafide agreement (b) work executed as per the agreement conditions. 100% verification has been done by the Team of Engineers and the conditions were satisfied in respect of all the civil works executed by the appellant-plaintiff. The conditions stipulated at Para Nos.10 and 11 of the Government Memo, in fact applies where the recorded measurements were often found to be incredulous, but not to credulous measurements. Superintendent Engineer and Quality control authorities were satisfied with the measurements recorded in the M-books. Restriction of payment to 50% and 70% is void ab initio and violative of constitutional provisions. The amounts recovered from the work, bills of other works are illustrated in the statements annexed to the plaint and the amounts worked out for 12 civil works is Rs.6,24,549/- which needs to be refunded to the appellant-plaintiff as the recovery is illegal.
4.4. The amounts recovered by the respondents-defendants from
