STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DEBENDRANATH MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants have filed the appeal against the decree of the Trial Court directing payment of Rs. 26,223/- with proportionate cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six per cent on sum of Rs. 15,941/- A cross-objection has been filed by the plaintiff respondent claiming further sum of Rs. 37,304.90 paise from the defendants.

(2.) The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 66.011/-. There is no dispute that the plaintiff, a contractor, had been entrusted to do the work relating to "Water Supply and Sanitary Installation in the Utak Bhavan, Calcutta" and a Contract in Form-F2 was executed on 21.9.1966. It is claimed that plaintiff completed the work under the supervision of the authorised Engineers. The then Executive Engineer after verification of the measurements endorsed his satisfactory remark in the Measurement Book on 16.11.1967 and on the following day, the plaintiff handed over the work to the S.D.O., who took charge of the work on behalf of the Department and handed over the work to the Manager. Utkal Bhavan, Calcutta, on 18.11.1967. During continuance of the work, some running bills had been prepared and interim payments had been made. Subsequently. Shri B. Mishra, who succeeded as Chief Engineer, with intention to harass the plaintiff directed the Executive Engineer to make fresh verification of the materials and to make check-measurements. Shri P.K. Rath, who had previously verified and made check- measurements submitted another report against the plaintiff without making any fresh verification stating that plaintiff has used non- specified materials and had cheated the Government Such a false report was submitted at the instance of Shri B. Mishra, the then Chief Engineer, as previously a suit for damages had been filed by the plaintiff and two others against Shri B. Mishra. It is also claimed that Sfiri P.K Rath had demanded illegal gratification and the same having not been acceded to by the plaintiff, had subsequently submitted a false report with a view to harass the plaintiff. It is further claimed that plaintiff submitted a final bill, but no payment was made, though correspondence was going on between the defendants and the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued notice under Section 80, C.P.C. on 22 9.1976 which was received by the defendants on 23.9.1976. As the amount claimed was not paid, the suit was filed on 11.9.1978.

(3.) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants. While denying the allegations in the plaint relating to mala fides on the part of the then Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer, the defendants took the plea that the work had not been executed in accordance with the specifications and the extra works had been executed without instruction of the Competent Authority. While denying the claim, it was stated that the suit was barred by limitation.