In a suit for recovery, where the defendant admits the performance of work but sets up a counter-claim for excess payments and non-performance, the burden lies on the defendant to prove such claims through credible evidence. Certified work statements by an authorized site in-charge are sufficient proof of work completion.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Suit for recovery of money - Proof of works performed - Certified statements provided by site in-charge - Burden of proof on defendant to substantiate counter-claim - The court found that documents certified by the site in-charge regarding the work performed by the plaintiff were valid evidence of the claim, whereas the defendant failed to provide credible evidence to support their contention of excess payments or the validity of their counter-claim. (Paras 17, 18, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a proprietary concern, acted as a sub-contractor for the defendant, a Private Limited Company, for earthwork and construction activities. Disputes arose regarding work measurements, documentation, and payment settlement. The defendant, alleging that sub-contractors were not paid and claiming that work was abandoned, sought a counter-claim for excess payments. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's counter-claim, leading to the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found no evidence to substantiate the defendant's counter-claim. It observed that payments to sub-contractors were made without proper authorization from the plaintiff and that the site in-charge had duly certified the work statements presented by the plaintiff. The court concluded the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of the claimed amount, and whether the defendant was entitled to the counter-claim for alleged excess payments.

Ratio Decidendi: When work is performed and certified by the defendant's authorized site representative, and the defendant fails to provide evidence to disprove the work or substantiate the alleged excess payments, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding balance. Appellate courts will not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or lack evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of contractual history and the nature of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. examination of payment protocols to sub-contractors and the binding effect of correspondence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. evidentiary value of certified records and documents in validating work claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. affirmation of trial court decision due to lack of evidence for the counter-claim. (Para 24 , 25)

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2003 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.2094 of 1997, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed the above suit vide O.S.No.2094 of 1997 against the sole defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.11,25,101.19 paise, which includes further interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 08.03.1997 on which date the amount was payable to the date of the suit.

4. The case of Plaintiff is that it is a proprietary concern with its main office in Nagpur and a branch office in Hyderabad. It operates in the fields of construction activity of building plans, interior decorations, marketing, and advertising. The Defendant is a Private Limited Company with its principal office located in Madras (now Chennai) and a branch office in Hyderabad. The plaintiff initially submitted a quotation on 15.12.1996, for excavation of black cotton soil, which was accepted by the defendant with modifications on 17.12.1996. A subsequent quotation for “Morrum” supply at Sanathnagar was submitted on 26.12.1996, and accepted by the defendant with a reduced rate. Following satisfactory performance, the defendant also placed an order for the supply of various sizes of metal. Payments for all works were to be made weekly at the site, based on measurements and the plaintiff submitted bills at regular intervals during the execution of the work. The plaintiff carried out excavation and related works for the defendant, involving material supply and use of machinery. The defendant, after verifying the work and measurements, made payments and communicated with government agencies (Concor and RITES) regarding the contract. A dispute arose when the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's work statement but later reduced the rates and prepared a corrected statement. The total value of the excavated work was Rs.8,35,830/- and the plaintiff completed the work to the satisfaction of the defendant and principal agencies, with no complaints about quality. The plaintiff completed various earthwork activities including dressing, levelling, and dozing, for which a total sum of Rs.6,13,403/- was payable. Despite repeated requests and correspondence, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount, including a balance for other works. The defendant ignored requests for settlement and a meeting at their Hyderabad office. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover Rs. 11,25,101-19 paise, which includes interest at 24% per annum from 8.03.1997 until the date of the suit.

5. In reply to the plaintiff averments, the defendant filed written statement and contended that it is a Private Limited Company, which had secured a contract in the year 1996 for construction work at a Container Corporation of India Depot in Hyderabad, which includes construction of pavements, parking areas, roads, walls, and drains. Initially, M/s. Alve Construction was responsible for excavating and disposing of black cotton soil but after discontinuing the work, they sought sub-contractors. Unique Quality, a former material supplier, was approached to undertake the excavation and work execution was to follow specified standards with dail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68506

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADAbhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJCCC Builders Merchants Pvt Ltd. – AppellantVersusUnique Quality Construction Contractors AND – RespondentCITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
CCC Builders Merchants Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Unique Quality Construction Contractors AND – Respondent
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2003