Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2578 (RAJ)

Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh v. Madan Lal

2019-09-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant first appeal has been preferred by the appellant Nagar Parishad, Hanumangarh for assailing the judgment-cumdecree dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Civil Original Case No.22/2017 whereby, the suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiffsrespondents was accepted and a decree fora sum of Rs.8,71,383/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties on admission of the instant appeal and have gone through the impugned judgment. 4. The Nagar Parishad issued an NIT in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' newspaper on 30.03.2013 inviting applications from the aspiring persons for the repair of drains in different streets of ward No.19, Hanumangarh Town. The bid offered by the respondent plaintiffs was the lowest. The contract was executed in their favour after the negotiations. As per the 'G' Schedule, work to the tune of Rs.9,59,130/- was awarded to the plaintiffs for construction of drains, repairs, crossings etc. The work order was issued on 17.09.2013. The plaintiffs completed the work assigned to them under the contract within the specified time frame. They submitted the bills for payment to the tune of Rs.9,58,905.59. However, the respondents delayed the payment citing lack of funds. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was disbursed against the bills to the plaintiffs on 13.04.2015. However, the defendant appellant failed to make payment of the remaining bill amount including the security deposit of Rs.95,891/- to the plaintiffs on which, they issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendants on 08.07.2015 demanding payment of an amount to the tune of Rs.6,58,906/- towards the said bills as well as the security deposit. The plaintiffs also submitted an application for prelitigation settlement before the Lok Adalat but, the defendant appellants, did not appear in those proceedings. Thereupon, the suit came to be instituted. 5. The plaintiffs also submitted an application for prelitigation settlement before the Lok Adalat but, the defendant appellants, did not appear in those proceedings. Thereupon, the suit came to be instituted. 5. The defendant-appellants, accepted the averments made in the plaint to the extent of the para Nos.1 to 3 and 5 completely whereas, the pleadings and assertions of the para Nos.4, 6 and 9 were partially accepted stating that the measurement book had lost/stolen from their office for which, an FIR had been lodged at the Police Station Hanumangarh Town. The police was in the process of investigating the case and it was further stated that no sooner, the measurement book was recovered, the measurement of the work executed would be made and the payment would be given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs led its evidence, proved the relevant documents including the note-sheets, running bills, certificate of work completion, etc. The defendants examined the sole witness Shivraj Krishna, Revenue Officer-II, Nagar Parishad, Hanumangarh Town but, he did not present or prove any document to establish the stand taken by it in the written statement. 6. The trial Court, considered the entire controversy and held that the amount of the bill i.e. Rs.9,58,906/- was admitted by the defendants to be due. However, the bill was withheld on the premise that the measurement book was not available with the defendants. The plea of the defendants that they had lodged an FIR for the missing measurement book was found not substantiated inasmuch as, neither was any copy of the FIR placed on record nor was any corresponding departmental document filed by the defendants in their evidence. After concluding so, the trial court, proceeded to decree the suit partially in favour of the plaintiffs by the judgment-cum-decree dated 08.05.2019. 7. Having heard and appreciated the submissions advanced at Bar and after having gone through the impugned judgment, I find that the trial Court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The contention of the plaintiffs that the payment of the bills submitted by them remained partly outstanding was not disputed by the defendant appellants. The plaintiffs-respondents submitted the relevant documents in support of the relief claimed in the suit. The defendants-appellants failed to prove even a single document to refute the submissions advanced by the plaintiffs. The contention of the plaintiffs that the payment of the bills submitted by them remained partly outstanding was not disputed by the defendant appellants. The plaintiffs-respondents submitted the relevant documents in support of the relief claimed in the suit. The defendants-appellants failed to prove even a single document to refute the submissions advanced by the plaintiffs. In the plaint, the noteworthy evidence amongst the documents submitted by the plaintiffs were the certified copies of the note-sheets, work completion certificate, etc. The only pretext on which, the defendants-appellants opposed the claim of the plaintiff-respondents was that the measurement book had been lost. The defendants' witness Shivraj Krishna admitted in his cross-examination that as per the document (Ex.2), the Nagar Parishad had admitted the fact that the amount of Rs.9,58,906/- was due to be paid to the plaintiffs. This document was issued from the record of the Nagar Parishad itself. The alleged FIR for theft of the measurement book was not proved in evidence. 8. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the plaintiffs proved their case in the trial Court by leading cogent and clinching evidence. The defendant appellants failed to controvert the plea/claim of the appellants by any plausible evidence whatsoever and hence, the suit was rightly decreed. The impugned judgment-cum-decree dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh does not suffer from any infirmity or error, factual or legal, whatsoever warranting interference therein. 9. Thus, the instant first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. The decree be prepared accordingly.