JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The unsuccessful defendant no. 1 in C.S. No. 3 of 2014 has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 5.7.2014 and 19.7.2014 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, namely, Harekrushna Nayak, for recovery of money. The case of the respondent no. 1 in brief is that he was serving as a Junior Engineer under the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’)(defendant no.1). During his tenure, he had executed more than 52 numbers of departmental works under his supervision engaging labourers at his own risk and taking materials from the Corporation as well as from the suppliers for which he had made payment by receiving the same from the Corporation. However, some of the expenses he had incurred and payment made were not reimbursed by the Corporation and the same was held up without any reason. The details of the works for which he had not received any payment are detailed herein below: SI. No. Engg. File Nos. Name of work with Ward Nos. Final Bill amount Rs. 1. 421-96 Raising to laterite stone masonry R/S-14 6,500/- 2. 901-97 S/R to BSWC at Markarba Sahi to M.S.W.C. Reach-1 57,300/- 3. 904-97 S/R to C.C. road & drain from R. Sahu grocery shop to P. Das Res-14 69,200/- 4. 420-96 Raising to laterite stone masonry Well-14 7,696/- 5. 967-97 Preparation of RCC 33,177/- 6. 873-97 S/R to Road Behera Sahi Makarba Sahi, 14 17,200/- 7. 907-97 S/R to press club Gouri Sankar park-15 22,094/- 8. 561-97 S/R to road from Bajrkabati Road to Samant Sahi, Rausapatna-15. 30,133/- 9. 871-97 S/R to road from Kesharpur Chhak to Hotel Honkong-15 1,81,400/- 10. 81-99 S/R to Mangalabag Main road to Neogi Lane­-23 86,260/- Total Rs. 5,13,520/- It was the further contention of Mr. Nayak (respondent no.1) that the final bills were passed but the same remained unpaid. In the meantime, he retired from service on 31.5.2000. It was his contention that the Junior Engineers of the Corporation used to execute the departmental works at their own risk and payment was being made to the labourers and suppliers of the materials after receiving payment from the Corporation. In the meantime, he retired from service on 31.5.2000. It was his contention that the Junior Engineers of the Corporation used to execute the departmental works at their own risk and payment was being made to the labourers and suppliers of the materials after receiving payment from the Corporation. In the instant case, though the departmental works, as aforesaid, have been completed to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was partly reimbursed but the rest of the expenses incurred and payment made by the plaintiff remained unpaid by the Corporation. It was the further case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 that one Sarat Chandra Pradhan, the then Assistant Engineer, raised some disputes with regard to File No. 901 of 1997 (as referred to Sl. No. 7 of the aforesaid table) with mala fide intention. Thus, the Municipal Engineer asked Sri Pradhan vide his letter dated 18.8.2000 to establish his allegation, but he failed to do so. Further, the Municipal Engineer (M.E.) wrote a letter to the then Executive Officer of the Corporation, to stop payment of the departmental works in respect of two other files, namely, File No. 561 of 1997 and 967 of 1997 as at Sl. Nos. 8 and 5 respectively, as there were allegations made by two persons, namely, Mr. Debendra Routray and Miss Nalini Sasmal, regarding less payment whose services were utilized for execution of the aforesaid jobs. However, subsequently it was found that said Debendra Routray had not made any allegation and Miss Nalini Sasmal had only signed on a petition written by the Assistant Engineer, Sri Sarat Chandra Pradhan. Thus, there was no dispute over the departmental works in respect of File Nos. 907/97, 561/97, 967/97 and 420/97. Running bills were passed and part payments were also made to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in respect of those files, but the balance amount of Rs.93,060/- was illegally paid to Sri Pradhan, though the plaintiff-respondent no.1 had executed the work by taking assistance of the labourers and suppliers of materials. It was probably because by then the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was relieved from the Corporation on transfer. Though there are several illustrations regarding Junior Engineers receiving payment even after transfer or retirement, there was a deviation in the case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 without any reason. It was probably because by then the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was relieved from the Corporation on transfer. Though there are several illustrations regarding Junior Engineers receiving payment even after transfer or retirement, there was a deviation in the case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 without any reason. When the plaintiff came to know about such illegal payment, he raised objection and brought the same to the notice of the Executive Officer, who upon enquiry directed Sri Pradhan to refund the money within three days vide his letter no. 501 dated 14.1.1999, but Sri Pradhan for the reason best known to him did not carry out the said direction. Thus, the plaintiff moved the Government of Orissa in its Urban and Housing Development Department, who vide letter no.10/2009 dated 3.4.2000 and letter no. 13743 dated 29.4.2000 sought for clarification in that regard, but the Corporation did not pay any heed to the same. Having failed to redress his grievance, the plaintiff approached this Court in OJC No. 804 of 2001. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,13,520/- with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum from defendant no. 1 along with cost. Though both the defendants appeared pursuant to the notice issued by the learned trial court, the defendant no. 1 only filed its written statement refuting the case of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 stated in its written statement that the plaintiff had not disclosed the details of the works and the persons involved in such work and his authority to perform such work. The plaintiff also did not disclose as to whether he was entrusted the job by the Municipal Authorities with due technical and administrative approval for execution of such work. The estimated cost, acceptance of the execution of the work by the Corporation, payment of advance, materials received and submission of bills etc. having not been disclosed by the plaintiff, he was not entitled to the amount claimed. Further, he had sought for recovery of money for the works he alleged to have undertaken in the year, 1996, 1997 and 1998. Thus, the claim was barred by limitation. having not been disclosed by the plaintiff, he was not entitled to the amount claimed. Further, he had sought for recovery of money for the works he alleged to have undertaken in the year, 1996, 1997 and 1998. Thus, the claim was barred by limitation. The Assistant Engineer, Sri Sarat Chandra Pradhan was the supervisory authority of the plaintiff during his incumbency as Junior Engineer under the Corporation. After the transfer of the plaintiff, payments were made to Sri Pradhan by the Corporation. Thus, the suit is bad for non-joinder of Sri Pradhan as a party to the suit. The plaintiff had approached this Court in OJC No.804 of 2001 on the self-same allegations, which were dismissed on 5.12.2012. The plaintiff also preferred a review petition bearing Civil Review No. 4 of 2003, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2003. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata and the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount as claimed by him. Further, the defendant no. 1 (appellant herein) contended that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. No notice as required under Section 80 C.P.C. and/or Section 629 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act, 2003’) was not served on defendant nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the defendant no. 1 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the trial court. (1) Is there any cause of action to file this suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-compliance of provision u/s. 80 of C.P.C. and u/s. 629 of Orissa Municipality Corporation Act? (5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for payment of Rs. 5,13,520/-(Rupees five lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred twenty only) along with interest as claimed by him? (7) What so any other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for? 4. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff only examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved documents marked as Exts.1 and 2. However, the defendant no. 5,13,520/-(Rupees five lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred twenty only) along with interest as claimed by him? (7) What so any other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for? 4. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff only examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved documents marked as Exts.1 and 2. However, the defendant no. 1 had not examined any witness, but filed the records concerning the works claimed to have been executed by the plaintiff, which were marked as Exts. A to H. The learned trial court on consideration of the pleadings and the materials on record decreed the suit partly on contest and directed the defendant no. 1 to pay Rs. 2,74,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization within three months, failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to take shelter of law and get the same executed through process of Court. Accordingly, the decree was drawn up. 5. Miss S. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no. 2 at the outset submitted that the defendant no. 2 who is respondent no. 2 herein having not filed any written statement, she has nothing to submit on the merit of the appeal. However, she can assist the Court for disposal of the appeal. 6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant raised several objections assailing the sustainability of the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal. He, at the outset, submitted that the suit is barred by limitation and the same is bad for non-compliance of the provisions under Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 629 of the Act, 2003. He also submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount so decreed. Notice under Section 629 of the Act, 2003 is a mandatory precondition for bringing a suit against the Corporation or any officer or any person acting under it. Thus, the suit is bad for noncompliance of mandatory provision. 7. Mr. Harekrushna Nayak, who is respondent no. 1 in this appeal and appears in person, submitted that he had given a notice to the State as well as the Corporation as required under the statute prior to institution of the suit. Thus, the suit cannot be held to be bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law. 7. Mr. Harekrushna Nayak, who is respondent no. 1 in this appeal and appears in person, submitted that he had given a notice to the State as well as the Corporation as required under the statute prior to institution of the suit. Thus, the suit cannot be held to be bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law. He further submitted that Issue No. 4 has been framed to that effect and the learned trial court while answering Issue No. 4 came to a conclusion that the notices to the Chief Executive Officer, CMC, Cuttack and the Secretary, Urban and Housing Development Department, Government of Odisha were issued by the plaintiff on 29.10.2002 and 29.3.2003 respectively. However, those documents were not marked as exhibits. 8. On perusal of the case record, it appears that copies of those documents were neither admitted to evidence nor marked as exhibits. Moreover, copies of the same were also not enclosed to the lower court record. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to testify the veracity of the submission made by the parties. The learned trial court has taken cognizance of the notices dated 29.10.2002 and 29.10.2003 respectively stated to have been issued under Section 80 (1) of the C.P.C. and Section 629 (1) of the Act, 2003. The learned trial court also took cognizance of the office note at Sl. No. 6 and held that the notices have been issued to the defendants on 29.10.2003. Mr. Panda took exception to the same and submitted that unless the documents are marked as exhibits, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the same. Further, though the plaintiff alleged to have issued notice to the defendant no. 1 under Section 629 of the Act, 2003 on 29.10.2003 and enclosed the copy thereof to the plaint, no copy of such document was served on the defendant no. 1 as required under law. Thus, the defendant no. 1 did not get any opportunity to verify the said document and cross-examine the plaintiff on the same and adduce rebuttal evidence. In reply, Sri Nayak-respondent no. 1 submitted that when the said documents formed part of the record, the learned trial Court has rightly taken note of the same while answering Issue No. 4. As such, objection raised by Mr. Panda does not hold good. 9. In reply, Sri Nayak-respondent no. 1 submitted that when the said documents formed part of the record, the learned trial Court has rightly taken note of the same while answering Issue No. 4. As such, objection raised by Mr. Panda does not hold good. 9. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1, who appeared in person and on perusal of the case record, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to admit the documents upon which he placed reliance and he cannot place reliance upon the document which has not been admitted as evidence and marked as exhibits. Neither notice under Section 80(I) of the C.P.C. nor notice under Section 629 (1) of the Act, 2003 stated to have been filed by the plaintiff, have been marked as exhibits. Thus, finding on Issue No. 4 is not sustainable. As it appears, the plaintiff was conducting the suit in person and is not expected to have any knowledge of intricacies procedural law. Hence, an opportunity should be given to him to take appropriate steps to admit the notices stated to have been issued under Section 80 C.P.C. and 629 of the Act, 2003 to evidence so that cognizance of the same can be taken by the learned trial court. The defendant no.1-appellant will not be prejudiced, if opportunity is given to cross-examine the plaintiff and adduce rebuttal evidence. Moreover, it is essential for proper adjudication of the suit, more particularly when the office copies of the notices under Section 80 C.P.C. as well as under Section 629 of the Act, 2003 have been filed by the plaintiff. 10. It is argued by Mr. Panda that sufficient evidence has not been led by the plaintiff to prove the entrustment of the works as under Exts. A to H to him by the Corporation. In order to get recovery of the amount as claimed by the plaintiff, he has to prove that he has, in fact, performed the job entrusted to him under the said files and had performed the work as per such entrustment. Scrutiny of the case record reveals that though such a plea is taken in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, no witness was examined on behalf of the defendant No.1 to testify the same. Scrutiny of the case record reveals that though such a plea is taken in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, no witness was examined on behalf of the defendant No.1 to testify the same. Thus, adverse inference is drawn against the defendants under Section 114 of the Evidence Act for non-examination of any witness to testify the pleadings in the written statement in view of the principles laid down in the case of Prem Sagar -v- Shri Darbari Lal and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1341 . Further, there is no dispute to the fact that the works, as aforesaid, has been performed and payment for the same has been made to Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, the then Assistant Engineer. But, the plaintiff in order to receive the amount has to show his entitlement. Exts. D, E, G and H for which the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount. On verification of the case record more particularly Exts. D, E, G and H, it reveals that the plaintiff had executed the work under those files and there was technical and administrative approval for the same. Ext. 1, the information supplied to the plaintiff at Point No. 6(a) and (b) reads as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 6(a). Letter No.501 dt. 14.1.1999 was issued by then Executive Officer of CMC to Asst. Engineer Sri S.C. Pradhan to refund the cash to Sri H.K. Nayak, J.E. as JE’s are actual executant of Deptt. works. Sri Pradhan has not yet implemented the above order. So his pensionary benefit are not finalised. (b). JE Sri H.K. Nayak made numbers of correspondence with CMC and Govt. of Orissa, H & U.D. Department basing on the above letter. xxx xxx xxx” Further, Ext. 2 reveals that direction has been issued to Mr. S.C. Pradhan, the then Assistant Engineer to settle up the case in proper consultation with Mr. H.K. Nayak (the plaintiff) and to refund the amount of Rs.1,81,400/- relating to Engineering File No. 871 of 1997, Rs.22,094/- relating to Engineering File No. 907/97, Rs.30,133/- relating to Engineering File No.561 of 1997 (in total Rs.2,33,627/-) to Sri Pradhan within three days. Mr. Panda, leaned counsel raised objection to the same submitting that no such letter is available in the Corporation and the said document is manufactured for the purpose of the case. The plea of Mr. Mr. Panda, leaned counsel raised objection to the same submitting that no such letter is available in the Corporation and the said document is manufactured for the purpose of the case. The plea of Mr. Panda cannot be accepted, for the reason that the copy of Ext.2 was supplied to the plaintiff by the Corporation under the provisions of Right to Information Act. No reliable evidence has been adduced to question its genuineness. Thus, there is no room for doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount as under Exts. D, E, G and H as held by the learned trial Court. In view of the above, while confirming the findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, finding on Issue No. 4 is set aside. This Court remits the matter back to the leaned trial court only for a limited purpose to give opportunity to the plaintiff to prove the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. as well as the notice under Section 629 of the Act, 2003 stated to have been issued to defendants. The defendants are also permitted to cross-examine and adduce rebuttal evidence on the said issue. It is made clear that the evidence already led in the suit is not wiped out by virtue of the order of remand and parties shall not lead further evidence on any other issue except as stated above. 11. While parting with the judgment, this Court hopes and believes that the learned trial court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably by the end of August, 2016. Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit.