JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - In present case a suit, filed by respondent/plaintiff, for recovery of ''6,13,100/- on account of amount due for the additional works done by him during performing the works awarded to him vide letters No. MCS/XEN/3730/RB/08-2400 and MCS/XEN/3730/RB/08- 2402 dated 5.12.2008, has been decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla vide judgment dated 18.11.2014, whereby plaintiff was held entitled to recover ''4,50,000/- along with costs of ''1100/- and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization of entire decreetal amount. 2. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was assailed by both the parties. Appellant-Defendant had preferred Civil Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas respondent/plaintiff had filed Cross-Objections therein for grant of interest @12% per annum, as claimed in the plaint, instead of awarded interest @8% per annum. The appeal as well as cross-objections were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla vide common judgment dated 2.1.2016. 3. Thereafter appellant/Municipal Corporation has filed the present appeal, whereas respondent/plaintiff has not assailed the dismissal of his claim qua the interest part. 4. Present appeal was admitted vide order dated 5.7.2016 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the courts below have committed illegality by decreeing the suit when there was no proof/evidence with regard to execution of additional works by plaintiff. 2. Whether the courts below have failed to appreciate that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Question No. 1 5. Perusal of record reveals that plaintiff has demonstrated the additional works done by him with specific details in para 1 of the plaint, claiming that the same was performed by him in addition to awarded work on the request of Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. In the written statement, execution of additional works was denied for want of evidence on record of the Municipal Corporation. 6. Plaintiff in his examination-in-chief, filed in the Court by way of affidavit, re-iterated the pleadings with respect to the execution of additional work. In his cross-examination, nothing impeaching his veracity with respect to the said claim has been brought on record. Respondent/plaintiff has also examined PW-2 J.K. Mahendru to substantiate his claim, who has proved on record the assessment and photographs of the additional work done on spot by respondent/plaintiff. In his cross-examination, nothing impeaching his veracity with respect to the said claim has been brought on record. Respondent/plaintiff has also examined PW-2 J.K. Mahendru to substantiate his claim, who has proved on record the assessment and photographs of the additional work done on spot by respondent/plaintiff. From the trend of cross-examination of the said witness, it is apparent that only thrust of appellant/defendant Municipal Corporation was on questioning existence of award/tender of additional work claimed to be performed by respondent/plaintiff, but not performance of that work. 7. Pw-3 Ajeet Kumar examined by respondent/plaintiff in support of his claim was the concerned Junior Engineer of the appellant/defendant Municipal Corporation at the relevant point of time. In his statement, he has deposed that entire awarded work was completed by the respondent/plaintiff under his supervision and thereafter respondent/plaintiff had also performed additional works at the instance of Lalit Bhushan, the then Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. He has endorsed the performance of works by respondent/plaintiff, as claimed in the plaint, by giving details thereof in his statement. He has further clarified that at the time of performance of the said works, Model Code of Conduct was in force due to elections and for that reason during that period neither tender could have been floated nor the works could have been awarded and further that for this reason measurement of this additional work was also not entered in books. He has also deposed that additional works are also got done through the contractors on the site in continuity of the awarded works and formalities, including assessment of the said works, are completed later on and he has asserted that respondent/plaintiff has completed the additional works on the spot. In his cross-examination also, lack of award of additional works has been pressed by the Municipal Corporation, but there is no suggestion in cross-examination, denying the execution of the additional works, as asserted by this witness in his examination-in-chief. PW-4 Sh. Amit Vaid is local resident of the area. He has also endorsed the execution of works on the spot. 8. Appellant/Defendant-Municipal Corporation has examined only one witness DW-1 Sanjeev Dharma, Junior Engineer of Municipal Corporation. PW-4 Sh. Amit Vaid is local resident of the area. He has also endorsed the execution of works on the spot. 8. Appellant/Defendant-Municipal Corporation has examined only one witness DW-1 Sanjeev Dharma, Junior Engineer of Municipal Corporation. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed to the extent that no additional work was allotted to the respondent/plaintiff and additional work, claimed in plaint to have been done by him, was never awarded to him and for the awarded work, which was completed by the respondent/plaintiff, entire payment was made. However, not only in cross-examination, but in examination-in-chief also, he has categorically stated that he had never visited the spot. In his cross-examination he has further stated that it was only the concerned Junior Engineer who could have made the statement about the fact that as to whether additional work was performed on the spot or not. 9. From the above discussion, it is evident that there is ample evidence on record so as to establish that additional work was performed by the plaintiff. Not only this, the concerned official i.e. PW-3 Ajeet Kumar has categorically stated that the additional work was performed by respondent/plaintiff at the instance of the then Executive Engineer, Lalit Bhushan. Therefore, it cannot be said that additional work was done by respondent/plaintiff at his own. Otherwise also, the respondent/plaintiff was not going to be benefited in any manner by doing the additional work done, which was not awarded to him and by taking risk of investing money without award. There is specific allegation that the work was done at the instance of concerned Executive Engineer, but the Municipal Corporation has not come forward with the plea that no such work was ever asked to be performed by the said Executive Engineer nor the said Officer has been examined as a defence witness. 10. From above discussion, it is evident that plea of appellant that Courts below have committed illegality by decreeing the suit without having any proof or evidence on record of execution of additional work by the plaintiff, is not sustainable and the substantial question of law is decided accordingly against the appellant./defendant-Municipal Corporation. Question No. 2. 11. The second substantial question of law is that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Question No. 2. 11. The second substantial question of law is that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the written statement, no objection was ever taken to that effect, nor it has been brought in the notice of the trial Court that who was the necessary party for proper and effective adjudication of the suit. However, in appeal, in ground No. 2, this issue was raised for the first time and in present second appeal in ground 6(f), it has been stated that respondent/plaintiff has failed to array the concerned officials/officers of the Corporation as party at whose instance the respondent executed the extra works. It is settled law of land that the ground, which has not been raised in the trial Court, is not available to the appellant in appeal, however, a legal question can be raised at any stage, including in appeal. But in case, this objection is considered even at this stage, then also the same is not sustainable. Each official/officer, under whose supervision work was done, is not necessary to be made a party to the suit, where the work was being performed by respondent/plaintiff for and on behalf of Municipal Corporation and amount is to be paid by Municipal Corporation and Municipal Corporation has been sued through Commissioner, which includes the entire official machinery of the Municipal Corporation. Municipal Corporation is responsible for omission and commission of its employees related to their performance during course of their employment. Such officer/official would have been necessary party in case the respondent/plaintiff would have set up a specific claim against them also, in their personal capacity, which is not a case in present lis. There is no non-joinder of necessary party as the suit can be and has been adjudicated and decided effectively and completely by the trial Court in presence of necessary parties to the suit. It is a dispute between plaintiff and defendant wherein claim has been put forth against defendant and none else. Therefore, point raised regarding non-joinder of necessary party is not sustainable. Therefore, substantial question of law No. 2 is also decided against the appellant/defendant. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merits. Record be sent back.