CHITTA RANJAN KAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment dtd. 21/11/2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No.2 of 2016 and consequent decree thereof whereby the money claim of Rs.12,44,191.00 of the appellant with compound interest thereupon and cost, was dismissed.

(2.) In fact, this is a second round of litigation going on between the parties. The appellant, as plaintiff, filed another money suit earlier bearing no. MS 25 of 2000 before the same trial court for recovery of the cost of work namely, construction of sale hall at Sunder Tilla market and Hapania market to the tune of Rs.6,77,293.00. According to the appellant, he was favoured with the aforesaid two works on submission of his tender and after successful bidding thereof, two separate work orders were issued to him. While doing such work at Sundar Tilla as per work order dtd. 7/3/1986, he had to execute some extra works on verbal instructions of the authority and out of final bill of Rs.1,25,000.00 payment was made for Rs.50,000.00 through running bills and rest amount of Rs.75,000.00 was kept pending. Regarding the execution of the construction of sale hall at Hapania market in respect of work order dtd. 2/8/1989, similarly, he had to execute some extra works namely, construction of sanitary latrine, urinal, surface drain, water tank etc. but no payment was made. Moreover, regarding the work of Hapania market, he had to remove 'dunda-mooram' (one kind of soil harder than the technical term 'hard soil") as per verbal order of the Executive Engineer. Appellant further asserted that the Overseer recorded the Measurement Book (MB), but subsequently the entry therein was tempered and in place of 'dunda-mooram' in the MB, it was shown as 'hard soil' to the prejudice of the appellant and he was also not paid for the construction of one tank measuring 30 feet x 15 feet x 8 feet. Regarding work of removing said 'dunda-mooram', he even approached various authorities including Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer for settlement of his claim and consequently, a high power committee was also constituted for consideration of the claim of the appellant and finally, the committee recommended payment of Rs.21,140.00 on account of construction of tank etc. and accordingly, the said sumwas paid to him. Then being dissatisfied, he issued a notice under Sec. 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC) and ultimately, instituted the suit bearing no. M.S.25 of 2000.

(3.) On contest, said money suit No. M.S. 25 of 2000 was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, vide judgment dtd. 25/9/2001 and resultant decree dtd. 29/9/2001.