JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The deceased plaintiff instituted, a suit against the defendants, for recovery of Rs.1,53,817/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, for a sum of Rs.46,556/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff standing aggrieved by the impugned verdict, hence, concerts to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff was a welding contractor. He has done various works of welding for the defendants when he was so asked by defendant No.2. These welding works were done under the supervision of Sh. Prakash Chand, Asstt. Engineer of defendant No.2, the bills of which amounting to Rs.80,780/- and Rs.46,556/-, were verified and passed by the concerned official of the defendants but the amount of the bills has not been released. It is further alleged that for execution of these works, the plaintiff obtained temporary connection of electricity for which he paid a sum of Rs.1548/- as electricity charges and now he is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendants. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, non joinder of necessary parties, want of cause of action and limitation. It is pleaded that there was no legal contract inter se the parties as per the provisions of article 299 of the constitution of India for execution of any work and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. According to the defendants, defendant No.2 had never asked the plaintiff to do any building work under the supervision Sh. Parakash Chand Extra, Asstt. Engineer and the bills in question are the wrong bills. It is denied that the plaintiff submitted any bills amounting to Rs. 80780/-. With respect to the bills amounting to Rs.46,556/-, it has been pleaded that while doing some work plaintiff had submitted a bill of Rs.46,556/- only for the year 1999 to Sh. Parakash Chand Extra, Asstt. Engineer and the bills in question are the wrong bills. It is denied that the plaintiff submitted any bills amounting to Rs. 80780/-. With respect to the bills amounting to Rs.46,556/-, it has been pleaded that while doing some work plaintiff had submitted a bill of Rs.46,556/- only for the year 1999 to Sh. Prakash Chand but neither this bill was handed over to any authority of the Govt., nor those were given to his successor by Sh. Prakash Chand after his retirement. It is pleaded that if any work has been done by the plaintiff, it has been done without fulfilling any codel requirements and therefore, the submission of any bill by the plaintiff does not arise. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,53,817/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the defendants, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not legally maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether there is no legal contract as per Article 299 of Constitution of Indian between the parties? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8 Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court partly allowed the appeal AND reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein, he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 13.06.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the appeal came up for admission on 13.06.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff could have been denied the relief of payment of remaining amount of Rs.80780/- in view of the admission of the witnesses that the work has been completed in Type-IV quarters by the appellant/plaintiff? 2. Whether the learned appellate Court below has misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, especially documents placed on record while passing the impugned judgment and decree? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2. 8. PW-3 Prakash Chand, in his testimony existing in his cross-examination, acquiesced to the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel, appearing, for the defendant, of, his transmitting to the DDO concerned, bills respectively borne in Ex.PW1/j, Ex.PW1/L, Ex.P1/H, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/K. However, the learned Appellate Court imputed sanctity vis-a-vis the bills borne in Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/M. The learned Appellate Court had relied upon the testification rendered, by, DW-1 in his cross-examination, of, the plaintiff executing works, of installing water tanks above the quarters, wherein, the employees, of the respondents concerned hence reside, AND his enclosing them with steel guages. Furthermore, he acquiesced to the suggestion, put to him, by the counsel for the plaintiff, of the plaintiff also erecting an iron stair case, for accesses vis-a-vis the water tank, besides he continued to testify, in his testification, borne in his cross-examination, of, the plaintiff, erecting railings along path leading upto type-IV quarters, housing the employees of the respondent concerned, yet the aforesaid testification remained irrevered by the learned First Appellate Court, (i) merely, on the ground, of, DW-1, feigning ignorance vis-a-vis the trite factum, of, the execution of the aforesaid works, occurring or not at the behest or by the plaintiff. The aforesaid irreverance meted by the learned Appellate Court, to, the aforesaid testification, occurring in the cross-examination of DW-1, is mis-placed, for the reasons (a) of the aforesaid acquiescences emanating from him, upon affirmative suggestions purveyed, to DW-1, during the course, of, the counsel for the plaintiff holding him to cross-examination; (b) thereupon, the simplicitor factum of theirs being purveyed vis-a-vis him, by the counsel for the plaintiff, warranted, an inference of the defendants conceding, to, the existence of the aforesaid works at the relevant site; (c) dehors DW-1 not making any communication therein, of, their execution occurring at the behest of the plaintiff, did not deleverage, the plaintiff, from, claiming the expenses, of, his executing them, (d) especially, when no evidence has been adduced by the defendants, personificatory, of the person other than the plaintiff, executing the aforesaid works. Apart therefrom, the learned Appellate Court, discounted the vigour of the aforesaid testification, occurring in the cross-examination of DW-1, on the trite ground, of, prior to the execution of the aforesaid works, no apposite formalities, comprised in prior thereto approvals and sanctions being accorded by the authority concerned or by the official concerned, who meted oral directions to the plaintiff to carry out the aforesaid works, especially despite, theirs existing at the site besides when benefits thereof stand derived, by the employees of the defendants. Since, the relevant works are existing at the site, besides when no person other than the plaintiff, has been shown, by the defendants to execute them, therefore, even if no approvals and sanctions qua the execution of the aforesaid works, stand purveyed, by the authority concerned, yet it would not bar, the plaintiff to seek reimbursement, of, the expenditure incurred by him for executing the aforesaid works. Consequently, in the learned first Appellate Court, not imputing sanctity, to notice Ex.PW1/O, notice whereof stood issued by the plaintiff, to, the defendants qua defrayment of bills amounting to Rs.80,780/-, especially when, the defendants failed to prove, of, the plaintiff in executing them, hence, charging rates in excess, of, the prescribed rates prevalent in contemporaneity, to the execution of the relevant works, hence has committed a gross irregularity. The defendants, are directed to hold measurements, of, all executed works reproduced in Ex.PW1/O AND thereafter calculate the expenditure incurred thereon by the plaintiff, as per the rates prevalent at that time, and liquidate the same to the plaintiffs. 9. The defendants, are directed to hold measurements, of, all executed works reproduced in Ex.PW1/O AND thereafter calculate the expenditure incurred thereon by the plaintiff, as per the rates prevalent at that time, and liquidate the same to the plaintiffs. 9. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 10. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are modified. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with proportionate costs, deretal sums whereof be arrived at in the aforestated manner, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.