Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 858 (RAJ)

S. B. Kiln Contractors v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present civil first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh Camp-Suratgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’), whereby the suit preferred by the appellant-plaintiff seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.19,000/- has been dismissed and the counter claim filed by the State of Rajasthan has been allowed, directing the appellant-plaintiff to pay Rs.1,38,262/- to the State of Rajasthan. 3. Briefly noted the facts involved in the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff is a registered firm under the Partnership Act, 1932 and is a Class-A approved contractor with the Rajasthan Canal Project. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.19,000/-. However, the defendant admitted the claim of the appellant-plaintiff only to the tune of Rs.1,414/- and disputed the remaining amount. Further, the defendant filed a counter claim to the tune of Rs.1,20,386.26/-. The Trial Court, after framing the issues, decided the suit proceedings by allowing the counter claim of the State Government and rejected the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.19,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the issue No.6 was that whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled for an amount of Rs.1607.23/- along with the earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,769/- or not and the findings on this issue have been recorded in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of the findings recorded on the issue No.6 clearly shows that the Trial court has recorded the findings in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, adjudicating the claims to be admissible to be paid to the appellant-plaintiff, however the court has erroneously decided the issue No.6 itself against the appellant-plaintiff. He submits that once the findings on issue No.6 were recorded to be in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, there was no question that the issue No.7 could have been decided against the appellant-plaintiff and the suit so filed by the appellant ought to have been decreed in his favour. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the trial court has committed an error while rejecting the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the trial court has committed an error while rejecting the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also submits that the findings on issue No.8 came to be recorded against the appellant-plaintiff, which is also incorrect, as the appellant-plaintiff has placed on record a number of communications, which show that the quality of the coal supplied by the respondent-State was inferior and therefore, the consumption of the coal as required for the preparation of tiles was more than anticipated. He submits that despite repeated communications, although the State Government got the quality of the coal examined, but, the report of the examination was neither produced before the Trial Court nor supplied to the appellant-plaintiff. Thus, the findings recorded on Issue No.8 are also erroneous. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court on 16.12.1988. He submits that the quantity of the coal consumed by the appellant-plaintiff was more than agreed quantity, as per the contract and hence, the appellant-plaintiff was under an obligation to pay the amount for the excessive coal utilized in manufacturing of the tiles. He, therefore, prays that the first appeal preferred by the appellant may be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to provide any justification before this Court as to why the Coal Examination Report was not produced before the trial court. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. A plain reading of the findings on issue No.6 reveals that the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to get Rs.16,769/- & Rs.1,414/-, but surprisingly, the issue itself has been decided against the appellant-plaintiff. Further, the issue No.7 has also been decided against the appellant-plaintiff stating that since the issue No.6 is decided against the appellant-plaintiff, therefore, he is not entitled for any interest. Further, the issue No.7 has also been decided against the appellant-plaintiff stating that since the issue No.6 is decided against the appellant-plaintiff, therefore, he is not entitled for any interest. It is worthwhile to reproduced issue No.6 and the findings of the trial court on issue No.6: ^^6] D;k oknh izfroknh ls VkbZyksa ds 'ks"k Hkqxrku ds :i;s 1607&23 iSls ,oa izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k o :i;s esa 16]769@& vFkkZr :i;s 18]376 iSls 23 dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^ ^^fook|d la- 6 15 VkbZyksa ds 'ks"k Hkqxrku dh jkf'k 1607 :i;s 23 iSls oknh ds cdk;k gksuk izfroknh us vius tokc nkok esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA ijUrq mtjkr ethn ds [k.M la- 17 esa dgk x;k gS fd izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k] vk;dj jkf'k] de djus ij ;g dsoy 1414@& gh ckdh cprs gSaA 16769 :i;s izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k cdk;k gksuk izfroknh us vius tokc nkok esa Lohdkj fd;k gS ijarq blds fy, izfroknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd ;g jkf'k tCr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSa ijUrq bl izdkj dh tCrh dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gSA ,slk ys[k ls Li"V ugha gSA vr% ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd ;g izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k izfroknh }kjk tCr dj yh xbZA vr% oknh izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k 16769 :i;s rFkk Vkbyksa dh 'ks"k Hkqxrku dh jkf'k 1414@&izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vFkok bl jkf'k dks izfroknh dh dksbZ jkf'k cdk;k fudyrh gks rks mlesa lek;kstu djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;g fook|d mijksDr izdkj ls fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 7. A bare perusal of the findings recorded under such issue show that the trial court has held the appellant-plaintiff entitled for getting the amount due to the tune of Rs.16,789/- and Rs.1,414/- due from the State, but interestingly, the issue No.6 itself has been decided against the appellant-plaintiff. Further, on the same ground, issue No.7 has also been decided by the trial court against the appellant-plaintiff. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has erred while deciding the issue Nos.6 & 7 against the appellant-plaintiff. 8. Furthermore, the issue No.8, which has been decided against the appellant-plaintiff is also incorrect on the ground that it was a specific case of the appellant-plaintiff that the coal supplied by the State Government was of inferior quality and, therefore, the amount of coal utilized for the manufacturing the tiles was more than agreed. 8. Furthermore, the issue No.8, which has been decided against the appellant-plaintiff is also incorrect on the ground that it was a specific case of the appellant-plaintiff that the coal supplied by the State Government was of inferior quality and, therefore, the amount of coal utilized for the manufacturing the tiles was more than agreed. Moreover, despite repeated communications being made by the appellant-plaintiff in this regard, the examination/quality report of the coal was neither supplied to the appellant-plaintiff nor it was submitted before the trial court, therefore, the findings on issue No.8 were also erroneusly recorded by the trial court. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff, on the principle of reasonableness, submits that if the counter claim of the State Government is rejected, then the interest on the decreetal amount can be waived. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the first appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and the counter claim filed by the State Government is dismissed. It is held that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get the amount as claimed by filing the suit for recovery. Further, taking into consideration the equities, the suit is decreed in favour of the appellant with a direction to the State Government to pay Rs.16,789/- & Rs.1,414/- without any interest amount within a period of two months from today. 11. Stay petition and other pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed accordingly.