JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No.01B/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.54,92,129/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of civil suit are that respondents-defendants' company issued a work order No.PIL/SKJ/A/1207/01//66 on 12.07.2010 for the work of design, manufacture, supply, laying, jointing and testing of 150 MM MS and 400 and 500 MM BWSC pipes and the amount of work order is Rs.2,23,96,200/-, which was accepted by the appellant/plaintiff and by mutual consent, amendments were carried out in the said work order on 19.07.2010, 09.08.2010, 25.01.2011, 01.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 to the effect that the work is to be completed by 20th November in place of 30th September, as per amendment in the work order. It was pleaded that an additional condition was inserted in the work order for supply of extra pipe, according to which, the amount was enhanced to Rs.2,40,81,610/- in place of Rs.2,23,36,200/- and ultimately on 09.02.2011, the amount was fixed at Rs.2,40,81,610/-. 3. It was also put forth by the appellant – plaintiff that plaintiff started his work as per work order and from 17.09.2010 to 25.08.2012, plaintiff submitted bill amounting to Rs.2,44,74,499/- (as per Annexure-A) against the work before the respondents/defendants, to which, there was no objection from their side and accordingly, interim payments were made to the appellant-plaintiff. It was also the case of appellantplaintiff that on 08.01.2011, 14.01.2011, 15.07.2011 and 01.12.2011 respectively, total six work orders were issued in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in which, time to time amendments were carried out and as per amended work order, further 13 bills (Annexures B and C) amounting to Rs.4,51,95,135/- were raised by the appellant-plaintiff strictly in accordance with the contractual terms and rates as enumerated in the work order. The plaintiff was also submitting bills regularly along with work progress report to the defendants-respondents and in the month of May, 2012, the appellant-plaintiff completed 90% work, out of the six work orders. The plaintiff was also submitting bills regularly along with work progress report to the defendants-respondents and in the month of May, 2012, the appellant-plaintiff completed 90% work, out of the six work orders. Although the respondents-defendants' company made 75 part payments of different amounts against the bills (Annexures- A, B & C) submitted by the appellant from 09.01.2010 to 04.05.2012, amounting to Rs.3,97,03,006/- as per statement Annexure-D, but withheld the amount of Rs.54,92,129/- against the six work orders, which amount is due and payable to the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff made several requests reminding the respondent-defendants to pay the balance amount, but the respondents-defendants chosen not to reply. Thereafter, appellant-plaintiff sent two legal notices through registered mode on 21.06.2013 & 26.06.2013 to repay the balance amount, despite that vide letter dated 13.07.2013, the respondents-defendants refused to repay the balance amount of Rs.54,92,129/-. Therefore, the appellant-plaintiff has been constrained to file the civil suit for recovery of balance amount i.e. Rs.54,92,129/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice. 4. Respondents-defendants No. 1 & 2 resisted the suit by filing written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff did not complete the work within the time limit as prescribed in the work order. It was also pleaded that the respondents-defendants' company, due to excessive delay caused by the plaintiff, sustained loss and that the plaintiff company has taken this action out of bad faith instead of completing the work order and the standard of work done by the plaintiff's company is also of sub-standard level. The defendants further pleaded that it is an essential condition in the work order that the payment would be made to the plaintiff only when he completes the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract within the time period, but the plaintiff did not complete the work on time. It was also denied by them that defendant No.2 only issued work/purchase order No.PIL/SKJ/GR/1401/01/124. It is also denied by them that after successful completion of work order No.66 dated 12.07.2010, the purchase order No. PIL/SKJ/GR/1401/01/124 was issued. It was also denied by them that defendant No.2 only issued work/purchase order No.PIL/SKJ/GR/1401/01/124. It is also denied by them that after successful completion of work order No.66 dated 12.07.2010, the purchase order No. PIL/SKJ/GR/1401/01/124 was issued. The defendants further pleaded that by making amendments, the terms of payment were changed and the damage and bonus clauses were removed and this has happened in the interest of the plaintiff's company only, therefore, it is denied by them that the amendment was made with mutual consent. It was also denied by them that the plaintiff has completed all the six work and purchase orders in full and complete satisfaction without any objection and complaint. The work done by the plaintiff's company was found not satisfactory as the plaintiff completed the work by commissioning sub-standard material. The defendants accepted the bills presented by the plaintiff to some extent in respect of which the work was done and no payment was made in respect of incomplete work and whatever amount remains outstanding that has been paid to him and as on date the plaintiff company does not owe any valid dues. The defendants had cleared the plaintiff's bills regularly without any interruption and payment was paid in good faith. The plaintiff's company left the work incomplete after sub-standard work was done. As a result of which, the defendants again incurred expenses and losses in getting those deficiencies repaired by another contractor. In fact, the defendants' company suffered financial loss due to delay in carrying out the work for a period of exceeding one year from the prescribed period. The respondents' company has been regularly paying the outstanding amounts and as on date, no bill amount of any kind is outstanding, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of any outstanding amount. 5. The respondents' company has been regularly paying the outstanding amounts and as on date, no bill amount of any kind is outstanding, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of any outstanding amount. 5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the learned trial Court and on the basis of evidence and pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues and all the issues have been answered as not proved and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he has executed the entire work obtained by it as per work orders Exs.P-2 & P- 4 and Exs.P-5 to Ex.P-11 issued by the respondents' company, therefore, in such a situation, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as sought for by it and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 6. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, submits that impugned judgment & decree passed by the trial Court is not based upon the proper appreciation of evidence on record and not sustainable in law. The respondents cannot deny the claim put forth by the plaintiff at a belated stage when the bill for the remaining balance amount was produced before them. The respondents pointed out the deficiencies only after completion of work done by the plaintiff, whereas they ought to have pointed out the deficiencies during the course of execution of work as is evident from the Ex.D-1 sent by the respondents to the plaintiff. By pointing out the deficiencies after completing the work done by the plaintiff at a later stage and thus withheld the balance amount of 10% by the respondents shows the malafide intention of the respondents. He also submits that as per terms and conditions of the work order, the execution of work initiated by the plaintiff has been completed on 02.12.2011, whereas Ex.D-1, which is a letter, was sent by the respondents to the plaintiff after lapse of one year i.e. 30.11.2012. In fact, the appellant/plaintiff has discharged its contractual obligations without any fail during course of execution of work. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff urged that the present appeal be allowed. In fact, the appellant/plaintiff has discharged its contractual obligations without any fail during course of execution of work. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff urged that the present appeal be allowed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs Woodward Governor India Private Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 1 , Gian Chand and Brothers and another vs Rattan Lal Alias Rattan Singh, (2013) 2 SCC 606 & Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through legal representatives vs Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 . 7. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019, submits that the work assigned to the plaintiff could not be executed by it within the time period prescribed, whereas time is essence of completing the contractual work. He further submits that due to excessive delay caused by the plaintiff, the defendants had to sustain heavy loss. This apart, the work done by the plaintiff is substandard and did not upto the mark and the quality of goods supplied by the plaintiff's company were also poor. Therefore, the trial Court, after appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been unable to prove its case and thus has rightly dismissed the case, which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. At the outset, we shall deal with the payment terms for the supply part of total order value which read as under:- “A. SUPPLIES 1. 10% against advance bank guarantee. 2. 80% against proforma invoice at the time of dispatch. 3. Balance 10% of after successful commissioning of system. B. ERECTION & COMMISSIONING- The payment terms for the Erection and Commissioning part of the total order value will be as following:- 1. 10% against advance bank guarantee. 2. 80% against completion of mile stone as per the mutually agreed erection schedule. 3. Balance 10% of after successful commissioning of system. DELIVERY PART The entire work has to be completed by 30 September, 2010. INSPECTION AND TESTING The inspection and testing of pipes shall be carried by you at your works and a test certificate to be issued along with every lot. 3. Balance 10% of after successful commissioning of system. DELIVERY PART The entire work has to be completed by 30 September, 2010. INSPECTION AND TESTING The inspection and testing of pipes shall be carried by you at your works and a test certificate to be issued along with every lot. However, we may depute our engineer to your works for inspection and testing as per our convenience.” 10. It is not in dispute that amounts raised by the plaintiff shown in statements 'A' to 'D' were paid to the plaintiff by the respondents' company. The entire controversy revolves around the question whether or not the respondents' company have successfully proved the factum of deficiencies during the course of execution of work done by the appellant- plaintiff and whether work is completed within time or not. On behalf of plaintiff company one G.S. Diwekar was examined as PW-1, who has stated in para 17 that the plaintiff's company fully discharged its responsibilities & contractual obligations in accordance with the terms of the purchase orders and completed all the six works/purchase orders from 30.11.2010 to 02.12.2011, as required by the respondents' company to their utmost satisfaction without any complaint and raised bills worth Rs.4,51,95,135.00/- and the bills were submitted before the respondents' company from time to time. In support of the work done by the plaintiff, the bills were produced before the trial Court to substantiate the fact that plaintiff completed the work orders, which are marked as Exs.P-14 to P-40, Ex.P-41 to P-50 under Statement-A and under Statement-B and the bills produced are marked as Exs.P-51 to Ex.P-53. It is also stated by him that after completion of full and final work, a bill amounting to Rs.55,51,315/- has been raised and submitted by the plaintiff to the respondents, which is exhibited as Ex.P-69. In cross-examination, it has been admitted by this witness that from time to time, the respondents' company was also paying payments regularly without any delay, the details of which are marked as Ex.P-69, wherein works completed by the respondents were shown. It is also admitted by him that on 14.01.2011 in the work order, the respondents' company removed the clause of delay and laches. It was also admitted by him that one Mr. It is also admitted by him that on 14.01.2011 in the work order, the respondents' company removed the clause of delay and laches. It was also admitted by him that one Mr. Asati, Officer of respondents' company was supervising the work executed by the plaintiff and for that they did not receive any certificate with respect to completion of work. It was also admitted by him that whatever pipe(s) commissioned by the plaintiff has not been rejected by the respondents' company. This witness was not subjected to cross-examination with respect to deficiencies in the work done by the plaintiff, although the respondents' company pointed out some deficiencies after completion of work and after lapse of one year of submitting the bill. 11. Now, we shall deal with the evidence of respondents' company. DW-1 Arun Kumar Singh, Senior General Manager of Respondents' Company, has admitted in his cross-examination that he had stated on oath in examination-in-chief as per the discussion held with one Shri Vikram Agrawal over telephone with respect to facts of the case as he did not have any personal information and after collecting information from Shri Sanjay Jain, Shri J.N. Asati, Shri Vikram Agrawal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Verma, he had stated the facts on oath. It has also been stated that although he did not have complete information, but he knew key facts of the case. 12. DW-2 Sanjay Jain, Executive Director of Respondents' Company, has stated on oath that despite there being amendments from time to time, the execution of work could not be completed by the plaintiff's company within time, therefore, on 30.09.2010, time limit has been extended to 20.11.2010, but till such date the plaintiff could not have completed its work. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there are total 16 rejection letters enclosed which are sent by respondents' company to plaintiff's company and the same are exhibited as Exs.D-3 to D-18, which bore the signature of authorised Officer of respondents' company. It has also been stated by him that rejection letters were sent to the plaintiff's company by courier, receipts of which are exhibited as Exs.D-19 to D-31 and along with letters, photographs of the work done by the plaintiff's company were also sent to them, which are exhibited as Ex.D-1 to D-10. It has also been stated by him that rejection letters were sent to the plaintiff's company by courier, receipts of which are exhibited as Exs.D-19 to D-31 and along with letters, photographs of the work done by the plaintiff's company were also sent to them, which are exhibited as Ex.D-1 to D-10. It has also been admitted by him in his cross-examination para 26 that respondents' company issued work orders more than one and amendments were carried out in the work orders from time to time with the mutual consent and whatever amendments were incorporated, time limit was fixed. It has been stated by him that the respondents' company informed with respect to supply of quality pipe, delay in commissioning the pipe lines and deficiencies in execution of work by way of letters, but on the other hand, he has also stated that the deficiencies in the work done by the plaintiff were informed by its supervisor to supervisor of plaintiff's company, but name of supervisor was not disclosed and not examined. However, he has admitted that the documents which were brought on record and marked as Ex.D-1 to D-31 do not bear his signature. The trial Court also held that Articles D-1 to D-10, photographs showing work done by the plaintiff, Exs.D-1 to D-18, rejection letters and receipts of courier service exhibited as D-2 and D- 19 to D-31 were not proved, in absence of cogent and clinching evidence in that regard. 13. Shri P.N. Asati, Senior President (Civil) of respondents' company has been examined as DW-3, who has stated that he has been engaged as in-charge of the project and he was supervising the work of the plaintiff's company. He has further stated that whatever pipes supplied by the plaintiff's company were sub-standard level and damaged, therefore, pipes have been rejected by the respondents' company. He has also stated that on 29.11.2012, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff claiming full and final payment, which was replied by them. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not inform his company with respect to poor quality of pipe and it was the Quality Control Department of his company which has informed the same to its company. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not inform his company with respect to poor quality of pipe and it was the Quality Control Department of his company which has informed the same to its company. He has deposed in para 8 of his cross-examination that he has not submitted any reminder letter nor any such document in this case to show that plaintiff's company supplied poor quality of pipe lines, on account of which his company made arrears of payment for poor work done by the plaintiff's company. He has also admitted that he did not submit any photograph etc. with respect to damage of pipe lines in every place nor did he inform about the leakage, damage and crack of the pipe to the plaintiff's company, which fact has also been admitted by DW-3 Ramesh Kumar Verma, Deputy Manager of respondents' company in para 9 of his cross-examination. 14. DW-4 Ramesh Kumar Verma has stated that the remaining work was got completed by him through other contractor, but he did not disclose the name of the authorised contractor of the company and he has not been able to state that the pipe was supplied by the plaintiff was substandard level or not. He also stated that only Shri Mathur, Quality Control Head, could only tell about the quality of the pipes supplied by the plaintiff, but the said Mr. Mathur has not been examined by the defendants. 15. From perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence brought on record, it is evident that the plaintiff got six work/purchase orders from the respondents' company for the work of design, manufacture, supply, laying, jointing and testing of 150 MM MS and 400 and 500 MM BWSC pipes for their water supply at Champa. It is clear from perusal of evidence coupled with the pleadings that the plaintiff, during course of execution of work, was submitting bills regularly to which respondents' company was also paying the amounts for the work done by the plaintiff from time to time. It is also manifest that during course of execution of work from 30.11.2010 till 02.12.2011, the respondents' company did neither point out the deficiencies in the work done by the plaintiff nor did withhold any payment or stop the payment and that there was no complaint against the plaintiff company by the respondents' company. It is also manifest that during course of execution of work from 30.11.2010 till 02.12.2011, the respondents' company did neither point out the deficiencies in the work done by the plaintiff nor did withhold any payment or stop the payment and that there was no complaint against the plaintiff company by the respondents' company. It is also clear that relations between the parties were also good during the course of execution of work and after completion of work. The fact that the plaintiff after completing and executing the work raised bills and respondents also paid almost 90% of amount for the work done by the plaintiff. After completion of entire work by the plaintiff on 02.12.2011, appellant-plaintiff raised bill for the remaining 10% of the outstanding amount, to which, the respondents company sent a letter (Ex.D-1) on 30.11.2012, after passing of about one year, to the plaintiff company pointing out the various deficiencies in the work done by the plaintiff in order to withhold the outstanding 10% amount and accordingly, withheld the same, whereas from perusal of evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents' company, it is evident that nowhere it was mentioned that the plaintiff was informed about the deficiencies in the work by way of letters, but orally brought about the deficiencies to the supervisor of plaintiff's company by the supervisor of respondents' company during the course of execution. The burden of proof lies on the respondents' company asserting a particular fact i.e. deficiencies in the execution of work at a belated stage, to affirmatively establish it, but the respondents could not establish with respect to deficiencies pointed out by it by way of cogent, clinching and reliable evidence. Although the respondents' company raised objection with respect to delay and laches in the work done by the plaintiff's company, but there is no reliable document on record to show as to how much monetary loss the respondents' company sustained. Moreover, from perusal of the record, it also appears that the respondents' company made entries in books of accounts including those maintained in electronic form and electronic record book and connected series of paper, which documents being not disputed were proved in the present case. 16. In this connection, it would be apt to reproduce the provisions contained in Sections 34 & 39 of the Evidence Act, 1872:- '34. 16. In this connection, it would be apt to reproduce the provisions contained in Sections 34 & 39 of the Evidence Act, 1872:- '34. [Entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic form] when relevant.- [Entries in books of accounts including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.] [39. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.-- When any statement of which evidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an isolated document, or is contained in a document which forms part of a book, or is contained in part of electronic record or of a connected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement, and of the circumstances under which it was made.] 17. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents when maintained books of accounts in regular course of business, the claim of the plaintiff's company ought not to have been rejected after passing of one year of submitting the bill by the plaintiff. In the matter of Gyan Chand (supra), the Supreme Court held at paragraph 28 which reads as under:- “28. The next aspect which requires to be addressed is whether the books of accounts could have been rejected by the High Court on the ground that the entries had not been proven due to dispute of signatures solely on the foundation that the plaintiff had not examined the handwriting expert when there was a denial of the signature. We have already dealt with the factum of signature, the pleading and the substance in the evidence. The plaintiff No. 2, his accountant and other witness have categorically stated that the books of accounts have been maintained in the regular course of business. The same has not been disputed by the defendant. We have already dealt with the factum of signature, the pleading and the substance in the evidence. The plaintiff No. 2, his accountant and other witness have categorically stated that the books of accounts have been maintained in the regular course of business. The same has not been disputed by the defendant. In such a circumstance, we may profitably reproduce a few lines from Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Woodward Governor India Private Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 1 : - “27. ….One more principle needs to be kept in mind. Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business are to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable.” Applying the said principle to the pleadings and the evidence on record, we find no reason that the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff firm in the regular course of business should have been rejected without any kind of rebuttal or discarded without any reason.” 18. Yet, in the matter of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (supra), the Supreme Court held in paragraph 15 as under:- “15. Moreover, there was no effective cross-examination made on the plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to factum of execution of sale deed, PW.1 and PW-2 have not been cross examined as to factum of execution of sale deed. The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one’s own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non crossexamination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. The effect of not cross-examining the witnesses has been considered by this Court in Bhoju Mandal & Ors. v. Debnath Bhagat & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1906 . This Court repelled a submission on the ground that same was not put either to the witnesses or suggested before the courts below. Party is required to put his version to the witness. If no such questions are put the court would presume that the witness account has been accepted as held in M/s. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1958 Punjab 440.” 19. Party is required to put his version to the witness. If no such questions are put the court would presume that the witness account has been accepted as held in M/s. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1958 Punjab 440.” 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold that the trial Court has erroneously recorded its findings to the effect that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and thus has not been able to prove its case, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and it is held that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case successfully after discharging its contractual obligations in full and complete satisfaction of the respondents' company and we direct the respondents' company to pay the remaining amount of Rs.54,92,129/- withheld by its company, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of judgment. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit which shall be payable to the plaintiff along with Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice. 20. Respondents/defendants shall also bear the cost of the suit of the plaintiff/appellant along with Advocate fees, as per rules. 21. A decree be drawn up accordingly.