RSA-6568-2016 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:061036

Sr. No.218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-6568-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2023

Sanjay Kiloi – Dopana Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd.

...Appellant

Vs.

The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary Irrigation Department,

Haryana and others

…Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. S.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals

before learned trial Court.

2.

Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts

below, plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court assailing Ld. Trial

Court judgment and decree dated 17.12.2014, as upheld by Ld. First

Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.05.2016, dismissing

its suit for recovery of Rs.7,07,200/- along with interest.

3.

Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Ld. Courts below, are that

plaintiff society authorized Ramphal Singh, Special Power of Attorney of

Sanjay, President of Society to file the present suit.

Page 1 of 8

ASHISH

2023.05.22 18:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this judgment/order

RSA-6568-2016 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:061036

3.1.

Plaintiff was awarded a contract to lay down pipe line to drain

out the flood water from RD-0 to RD-2650. The said task was named

“Constructing Baland Pipe Line Link Drain with RD-0 to RD-2650 out

falling into JLN Feeder at RD 185160-R. The total work assigned to

plaintiff was awarded at the cost of Rs.31,97,760/-. Thereafter, defendants

reduced the distance from RD-2650 to RD-2250 vide order dated

11.01.2010. Vide letter dated 20.05.2010, defendants again increased the

length from RD-2250 to RD-2650. Plaintiff completed the assigned work up

to RD-0 to RD-2250 on 29.06.2010. For the remaining work, a sump well

was to be constructed only after de-watering the vicinity. Plaintiff requested

permission for de-watering to construct the sump well on RD-185610-R JLN

feeder, but the defendants did not grant any permission. The material placed

on the site by plaintiff in expectation of permission was taken away by the

villagers stealthily as the same continued to be lying there for quite long

time. Thus, the plaintiff suffered monitory loss of Rs.99,272/- due to

negligence of defendants.

3.2.

Defendants prepared total bill of Rs.25,54,989/- for work done

by plaintiff. But only payment of Rs.19,45,041/- was cleared and balance

payment of Rs.6,09,948/- remained outstanding. An amount of Rs.97,252/-

deducted as security was also outstanding against defendants. Earnest

money of Rs.35,000/- was also not returned by defendants. Thus, total

amount of Rs.8,06,472/- was outstanding against defendants. Plaintiff time

and again raised demand from defendants for recovery of above said

Page 2 of 8

ASHISH

2023.05.22 18:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this judgment/order

RSA-6568-2016 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:061036

amount. Beleaguered plaintiff-society, as it then was, also served a legal

notice upon defendants but to no effect, hence the suit for recovery.

4.

Upon notice, defendants filed joint written statement taking

preliminary objections inter alia regarding locus standi, causal connection,

maintainability, jurisdiction, concealment of material facts etc.

4.1.

On merits, the defense was that length of drain was proposed to

be reduced and slope of pipe line was provided as 0.25 per 1000 ft. instead

of 0.15 per 1000 ft. but later on the length was restored as per the agreement.

Revised L-section was approved vide S.E., YWS Circle, Rohtak letter dated

20.05.2010 in which some modifications in design were made as per

demand of the farmers and site requirement. Plaintiff society neither

completed the work in full length assigned to it nor executed the work

according to PWD specification and design, as p