JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The defendant-appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No.06 of 2000 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II has decreed the suit on contest with costs, for payment of a sum of Rs.3,73,000/- with pendentelite and future interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum by the defendants to the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a registered contractor of the defendant no.1 which is a Central Government undertaking Company and the defendant no.2 and 3 are the officers of the defendant no.1. On the instruction of the defendant no.1 through its officers in the year 1993-94, the plaintiff was engaged for plantation of trees in the area of the defendant no.1. It is also the case of the plaintiff that keeping in view the experience of the plaintiff in plantation work of trees, he was asked to take up trees plantation work in B & K area of the defendant no. 1, at the rate of earlier awarded work at Kathara. The plaintiff accepted the said offer and in pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiff planted 20,000 trees and also did 200 metres fencing work on the quarry no.2 near the crossing of Jawahar Nagar and P.W.D. road for which a detailed map was prepared. Some of the trees planted by the plaintiff died. The plaintiff replaced the same in the year 1996 and the defendant no.3 assessed the cost of plantation at Rs.3,73,000/- and submitted a report to Project Officer of the defendant no.1-Company. The plaintiff demanded the payment vide letter dated 08.09.1996 and the proposal was submitted by the defendant no.3. Thereafter, several reminders were sent by the plaintiff. Lastly, the plaintiff through his Advocate also sent a notice on 03.08.1999 and in reply to the said notice, the defendant no.2 gave a vague report. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,73,000/- with interest till realization from the defendants. 4. After notice the defendants appeared and besides the usual defence, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not a registered contractor but he has done some tree plantation work at B & K area and other areas also on the basis of tender and contracts. 4. After notice the defendants appeared and besides the usual defence, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not a registered contractor but he has done some tree plantation work at B & K area and other areas also on the basis of tender and contracts. The defendants further pleaded that there was no tender proceeding or award of work/agreement for the plantation of trees between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. The defendants further pleaded that as per the norms of the defendant no.1-Company and prevailing rules, it is not justified to get the work done by any contractor. The defendants further pleaded that none of its officers ever pressurized the plaintiff for tree plantation in the year during 1993-94. The defendants denied of having given any order of work to the plaintiff and also pleaded that the plaintiff did not ever submit any letter of acceptance of the work order about plantation of 20,000 number of trees or 200 metres of fencing work in quarry no.2 near the crossing of Jawahar Nagar and P.W.D. road. The defendants did not have any record of detailed map prepared or the plaintiff having replanted the plants which died or for that matter any assessment of the cost of work done by plaintiff at Rs.3,73,000/-. Hence, the said claim of the plaintiff is not acceptable to the defendants. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff did not make any demand for payment or any work done during 1993-94. The defendants admitted of having replied to the notice sent through his Advocate by the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of rival pleading of the parties, learned court below framed the following seven issues:- (i) Is the suit as framed and filed in its present form maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred under the Specific Relief Act? (iv) Is the suit barred by the Law of Limitation? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.3,73,000/- with interest future and pendentilite? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 6. In support of its case, the plaintiff examined altogether six witnesses and also proved the following documents :- (i) Ext. 1 is the issue register of P.O. Secretariat, Bokaro Colliery which starts from 12.01.1994 down to 09.05.1997. (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 6. In support of its case, the plaintiff examined altogether six witnesses and also proved the following documents :- (i) Ext. 1 is the issue register of P.O. Secretariat, Bokaro Colliery which starts from 12.01.1994 down to 09.05.1997. (ii) Ext. 2 is the note-sheet endorsement which has been marked with objection being the photocopy of the endorsement. (iii) Ext. 2/1 is the photocopy of the proposal submitted by SO (c) (B. & K) Kargali. (iv) Ext.2/2 is the proposal for revalidation of fund. (v) Ext. 3 is the carbon copy of legal notice sent by Sri. A.K. Lal on behalf of Ramesh Chandra Jain (Plaintiff) to the G.M. C.C.L. (B&K) area on 03.08.1999. (vi) Ext. 4 is the reply of that notice from C.C.L. to Sri. A.K. Lal. 7. On the other hand, the defendants only examined one witness but did not prove any document. 8. On the basis of the evidence, both, oral and documentary, learned court below relying upon the photocopy of the note-sheet which was marked as Ext.2 and 2/1 with objection from the defendants, observed that the same shows that the work of plantation was done by the plaintiff and that the defendants orally ordered the plaintiff for plantation as per the maps supplied to him as has been mentioned in the said note-sheet which is marked as Ext.2 and 2/1 with objection and the claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the Officers on spot and answered the issue nos.5 and 6 in affirmative by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.3,73,000/-. Learned court below further held that the suit is not barred under the Specific Relief Act and also not barred under the Law of Limitation and that the suit has been properly framed and filed and there is no valid cause of action for the suit and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief except in respect of the demands decided by the Court and decreed the suit as already indicated above. 9. Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below erred by relying upon the Ext. 2 and 2/1 which are the photocopies of the alleged note-sheet of the defendants. 9. Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below erred by relying upon the Ext. 2 and 2/1 which are the photocopies of the alleged note-sheet of the defendants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly Ext.2 and 2/1 being the photocopies, it being the admitted case of the plaintiff that the original of the note-sheet are in the custody of the defendants, it was incumbent upon the defendants to either call for the original note-sheet from the defendants which was primary evidence of those note-sheet or in case of the defendants not producing the same upon notice as contemplated under Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act, the plaintiff could have proved the same by way of secondary evidence. But as the plaintiff has not taken any such steps hence theExt.2 and 2/1 being the photocopies are not admissible in evidence and the learned court erred by relying upon them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J. Yashoda vs. K. Shobha Rani reported in (2007) 5 SCC 730 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under :- “8. Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section 63 is exhaustive as the section declares that secondary evidence “means and includes” and then follow the five kinds of secondary evidence. 9. The rule which is the most universal, namely, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection. That rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided (sic proved) by primary evidence. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided (sic proved) by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. In Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube (1975) 4 SCC 644 it was inter alia held as follows: (SCC pp. 666-67, para 7) “7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of Section 65 of Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on 4-7-1973, before Respondent 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on 4-7-1973, before Respondent 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case Respondent 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of Respondent 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate that the original document was in the possession of Respondent 1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The photostat copy appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court. 10. The admitted facts in the present case are that the original was with one P. Srinibas Rao. Only when conditions of Section prescribed in Section 65 are satisfied, documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. In the instant case clause (a) of Section 65 has not been satisfied. Therefore, the High Court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.” (Emphasis Supplied) It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the Ext.2 and 2/1 were marked with objection being not legally admissible in evidence, the contents of the same cannot be read in evidence in this case. Therefore, the High Court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.” (Emphasis Supplied) It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the Ext.2 and 2/1 were marked with objection being not legally admissible in evidence, the contents of the same cannot be read in evidence in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that otherwise also the note-sheet having been allegedly issued for internal use for the office of the defendants-appellants and the same having not been issued for payment by the disbursing authority, the communication made therein certainly cannot be termed as an acknowledgement of liability of the plaintiff. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors. vs. Nawajiwan Trading Company reported in MANU/BH/0408/1991 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “57. Ext. 3/a is merely a notesheet; such a notesheet was issued for internal use of the office of the defendant-appellant No.1. Therein, merely a recommendation was made by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 that the amount claimed by the plaintiff should be paid to it. 58. Further, from Ext. 7, it is evident that the appellant No.2 himself stated that the sanction for the payment due to the plaintiff has not yet been received and payment should be made to it as soon as the sanction therefore is received. 59. These two exhibits an any, Exts. 3, 4 and Ext. 7 were not even issued by disbursing authority end for any payment which was required to be made by the plaintiff he had to obtain necessary sanction therefore form the finance department of the appellant No.1. 60. In such a situation, in my opinion, the learned court below cannot be said to have rightly held that Ext. 3/a and Ext. 7 were not even issued by disbursing authority end for any payment which was required to be made by the plaintiff he had to obtain necessary sanction therefore form the finance department of the appellant No.1. 60. In such a situation, in my opinion, the learned court below cannot be said to have rightly held that Ext. 3/a and Ext. 7 would constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned court below could not properly appreciate the evidence in record and there being no material in record to establish that the plaintiff has either done any plantation work of 20000 trees or fencing of 200 metres worth Rs.3,73,000/- in record, the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is based on no evidence and hence it is liable to be set aside and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned court below has rightly considered the Ext.2 and 2/1 to be admissible evidence. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 65 (e) of the Evidence Act, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Ext.2 and 2/1 though admittedly are the photocopies were duly proved by the P.W.6 who has made some endorsement in original of the said two note-sheet and as the same is a public document as defined in Section 74 read with Section 65 (e) of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as in the said note-sheets Ext.2 and 2/1, it has been categorically mentioned that the plaintiff has carried out the plantation of 20000 trees and fencing of 200 metres hence, the learned court below has rightly decreed the suit and thus this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 11. In view of the rival submission made at the Bar and after perusal of the record, the following points for determination emerge for consideration in this appeal:- (I) Whether the learned court below was right in considering the Ext. 2 and 2/1 as evidence admissible in record? 11. In view of the rival submission made at the Bar and after perusal of the record, the following points for determination emerge for consideration in this appeal:- (I) Whether the learned court below was right in considering the Ext. 2 and 2/1 as evidence admissible in record? (II) Whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff of plantation of 20000 saplings and replacing the saplings which died and also carrying construction of 200 metres of fencing work worth Rs.3,73,000/-? First Point for determination 12. So far as first point of determination is concerned, after carefully going through the record, I find that undisputedly the Ext.2 and 2/1 are the photocopies of the note-sheet and there is no dispute that no notice as envisaged under Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act was ever issued by the plaintiff to the defendants to produce the original thereof nor the defendants made any effort to ensure production of original of the note-sheets- the photocopies of which have been marked as Ext.2 and 2/1. The plaintiff has failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photocopies were prepared and who were in possession of the note-sheet at the time of preparing its photocopy. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that no foundation having been laid by the plaintiff for leading the secondary evidence of the Photostat copies documents which have been marked as Ext.2 and 2/1, they were not admissible in evidence hence certainly the learned court below has erred by relying upon the same and treating them as documents admitted in evidence. The first point of determination is answered accordingly. Second point for determination 13. So far as second point of determination is concerned, out of six witnesses examined by the plaintiff, P.W.1- Ramesh Chandra Jain is the plaintiff himself. In his examination-in-chief, he has corroborated the averments made in the plaint. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that no tender was floated for the work in question. The order was given to him by the Project Officer who is not a party to the suit and the defendant no.3 verbally gave the work order to him but no written order was given to him. He cannot say whether any Measurement Book was prepared therefor. The order was given to him by the Project Officer who is not a party to the suit and the defendant no.3 verbally gave the work order to him but no written order was given to him. He cannot say whether any Measurement Book was prepared therefor. He cannot say the Khata number and the plot number of the land where the saplings were planted. He was not issued with any certificate for completion of work. For regularization of other verbal orders, tenders were floated but no tender was ever floated for this work. He has one photocopy of written certificate issued by the defendant no.3. P.W.2-Ajay Krishna Das is the supervisor of the plaintiff. He has stated that as per the direction of the defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 offered to the plaintiff to plant saplings in the year 1993-94 which was accepted by the plaintiff. On verbal direction of the defendant no.3, the plaintiff in the year 1993-94 planted 20,000 saplings and made a fencing of 2000 metres at quarry no.2 at Jawahar Nagar crossing by the side of the road. Some of the saplings died and they were replaced in the year 1996 and total sum of Rs.3,73,000/- was incurred in planting the saplings. The saplings were looked after for two years by the plaintiff. He has also stated that the plaintiff demanded his claim but the same was deferred on one pretext or the other. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no Measurement Book was prepared for planting the saplings. No tender was floated till his deposing in court. In paragraph no.9 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the C.C.L. issues certificate on completion of the work but for this work no certificate was issued. He further stated that the plaintiff never entered into any agreement for planting saplings. He cannot say the length and breadth of the fence but stated it would be around 100 yards. No notice was given to the plaintiff for completing the work in 1994-95. The letter dated 08.09.1996 in one page was sent to the defendants under certificate of posting. P.W.3-Md. Habis Ansari has stated that he worked in the year 1993 in quarry no.2 of Kargali area for planting 20000 saplings. On being told by the plaintiff, he also did the work of fencing and looked after the same for two years. The letter dated 08.09.1996 in one page was sent to the defendants under certificate of posting. P.W.3-Md. Habis Ansari has stated that he worked in the year 1993 in quarry no.2 of Kargali area for planting 20000 saplings. On being told by the plaintiff, he also did the work of fencing and looked after the same for two years. In the year 1996, some of the saplings were replaced. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in 1993 saplings were planted and in 1994 the fencing was made. The fence was of 2000 metres in length but he cannot say the length and breadth of it. Though he has supplied the saplings from the nursery but has no document to show that he is the owner of the nursery or any cash memo to show the sale of the saplings to the plaintiff. In paragraph no.7, he has stated that barbed wire was used in fencing. He cannot say from where the plaintiff purchased the same. P.W.4-Panchu Das has stated that he was engaged by the plaintiff for planting saplings in the road side of Jawahar Nagar crossing to P.W.D. road and he also did the work of fencing. Some of the saplings died and he also replaced the same. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say from which place to which place the Kargali area spreads. He planted the saplings for one year and looked after them for another year. He cannot say from where the saplings were brought by the plaintiff. The length of the fencing was half kilometers. P.W.5-Mahtab Alam has stated that he was also engaged as a labourer by the plaintiff in planting saplings in quarry no.2 of Kargali area from Jawahar Nagar crossing to the P.W.D. road by the road side. He also did the fencing work and as some of the saplings died, he replaced the same. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the saplings were brought from the local nursery as well as from outside. In paragraph no.8, he has stated that the local nursery means the plaintiff himself was preparing the saplings. He cannot say how many saplings were brought from the nursery of the plaintiff. The fencing was made at four places. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the saplings were brought from the local nursery as well as from outside. In paragraph no.8, he has stated that the local nursery means the plaintiff himself was preparing the saplings. He cannot say how many saplings were brought from the nursery of the plaintiff. The fencing was made at four places. P.W.6-Sukhdeo Prasad has proved the photocopy of the note-sheet the contents of which have been marked separately as Ext.2 and 2/1 with objection and he further stated that he has written a report upon the same in his own handwriting. He is a retired employee of the defendant no.1. He further stated that in 1993-94, it was decided to carry out the work of planting saplings and fencing and the work was done. In his cross-examination, he has stated that while he was posted in his official post, he never made any verification of the alleged plantation. He sent the note-sheet for administrative approval. After administrative approval, allocation is done and tender is invited. No tender was invited for the alleged plantation as there was no tender hence, no work order was ever issued to any person. After completion of work, verification and measurement is entered in the Measurement Book and after that payment is made. For this work, no entry in the Measurement Book was made and without entry in the Measurement Book no payment can be made. On behalf of the defence, the D.W.1-Ashok Kumaris the defendant no.3. He has corroborated the averments made in the written statement. He further stated that no work order was given for the alleged planting of saplings. The defendant did not decide where the planting of saplings was to be done. The plaintiff did not do any planting of saplings in his area. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any money. No document relating to planting of saplings by the plaintiff is available in the office of the defendants. The plaintiff did not do any planting of saplings in the year 1993-94 within the territory of the defendants nor was any bill ever put up for the same. The plaintiff has also not mentioned any rate for the work done by him in his plaint nor was any map prepared by the office of the defendants for plantation of any saplings. The plaintiff has also not mentioned any rate for the work done by him in his plaint nor was any map prepared by the office of the defendants for plantation of any saplings. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was posted in this area since October, 2004. On being confronted with the photocopy, D.W.1 stated that the signature of Sri. J.P. Choudhary, Superintending Engineer (Civil), Bokaro was appearing on that which was marked as Ext.2/2. He further stated that from Ext.2/2, he cannot say whether the said letter was issued by the Officer Sri. J.P. Choudhary. Sri. S.D. Prasad, P.W.6 was the project officer of Bokaro Colliery, B & K area till 08.04.1997. 14. After going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that there is neither any pleading nor any proof as to at what rate the plaintiff was ever awarded the work of planting the saplings. As already indicated above, the plaintiff himself is in no uncertain terms admitted that there was no written order for planting of saplings nor there was any measurement book and no tender was ever floated. Though the plaintiff claims that he has a copy of the certificate issued by the defendant no.3, he has not produced the same. Though it is the case of the plaintiff that only 200 metres of fencing was made by him but the P.W.2 and the P.W.3 have stated that the fencing of 2000 metres was constructed while the P.W.2 has stated that the length and breadth of the fencing was of 100 yards. The P.W.4 has stated that the same was half kilometers whereas P.W.5 has stated that at four places the fencing was made. The star witness of the plaintiff is P.W.6- who is the Ex-Project Officer of the defendant-Company but nowhere in his deposition, has he stated that the plaintiff was ever given any order to carry out any work of planting of saplings or erecting any fence. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he never verified the plantation. What all he has stated about the alleged note-sheet which has already been held to be not admissible in law by this Court is that the said note-sheet was initiated for administrative approval. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he never verified the plantation. What all he has stated about the alleged note-sheet which has already been held to be not admissible in law by this Court is that the said note-sheet was initiated for administrative approval. As already indicated above, he has described the procedure after administrative approval was over and there is no evidence in record that there was any administrative approval or consequential acts of administrative work like inviting tender, issue of work order, work verification and entry in Measurement Book and he has categorically stated that in absence of the same, no payment can be made. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to prove his own case. Thus after going through the evidence in record, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish that the plaintiff has planted 20,000 saplings or erected fence of 200 meters worth Rs.3,73,000/-. 15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff having failed to prove his case, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No.06 of 2000 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but in the circumstances without any costs. 17. In view of the dismissal of the suit in appeal, all the interlocutory applications stands rejected being infructuous. 18. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.