UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURJIT SINGH ATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not content with raising a false plea, the appellant, Union of India, has preferred this appeal on a technical ground. The respondent-plaintiff undertook the construction of a hard Runway, taxi tracks and dispersal roads at Dalbhumghar Aerodrome. There was a formal written agreement between the parties (Agreement No. A-VII/96 of 1944-45). The respondent completed the work in 1945. The agreement provided for the work to be done "with stone at site", As no stone was available at the site, stone had to be obtained by blasting a rock in a Hillock. The rates stipulated in the agreement were on the basis that stone was available at site and not on the basis that stone had to be obtained by blasting rock. Some of the rates, therefore, required revision. There was a conference between the parties in November, 1947. On the side of the Government the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer and the Deputy Accountant General were present. In respect of fourteen items of work the old rates were not altered. In respect of ten items of work only the rates were altered. Out of these ten items rates were substantially increased for nine items but slightly decreased for one item. The rates agreed between the parties at the conference were the very rates which had been previously fixed by a Government Engineer named Ramani Roy and suggested to the plaintiff by the Superintending Engineer for his acceptance. The plaintiff initially objected to the rates but withdrew his objections at the conference. It was agreed that the total amount of the final bill prepared in accordance with the agreed rates, less a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, should be paid forthwith and the balance of Rupees 50,000/- should be paid two weeks thereafter. As agreed the amount of the final bill, less Rs. 50,000/-, was paid but not the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The sum of Rs. 50,000/- was not paid despite repeated demands by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore, filed suit No. 531 of 1951 on the original side of the High Court of Calcutta on 24th January, 1951 to recover the sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest.

(2.) In the plaint, as filed originally, the plaintiff stated that it was agreed that the work should be done by the plaintiff on the terms and conditions mentioned in certain letters that passed between the parties. No reference to the written agreement was initially made in the plaint but by a later amendment reference was also made to the agreement No. A-VII/96. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that after the completion of the work there was a conference in November, 1947 at Calcutta and an agreement was arrived at between the parties regarding the rates at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work executed by him. He claimed that in accordance with the terms of the agreement arrived at in November, 1947, he had yet to be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

(3.) As we said earlier, the suit was filed on 24th January, 1951. The defendant. Union of India, filed a written statement on 1st February, 1956 five years after the filing of the suit. The contract for the execution of the work was admitted. The completion of the work was admitted. The conference alleged by the plaintiff to have been held in November 1947 was denied. The agreement said to have been arrived at the conference was also denied. These denials have been bound to be false by the Courts below and the learned Counsel for the appellant had to admit before us that the denial was 'unfortunate'. It is a matter not merely of surprise but of shock to us that such a blatant false plea should have been raised by the Government in solemn proceedings before a Court of law. Far from setting an example as an ideal litigant, we notice that such false and untenable pleas are often raised on behalf of the Government. This is a matter which needs looking into by the authorities that the concerned with it and we earnestly hope that some suitable remedial action will be taken to avoid such pleas. To continue the story, no plea was taken in the written statement that the contract between the parties was hit by any failure to comply with the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.