DEPUTY CHAND GOYAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MEHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for recovery of Rs. 15, 000/-, including interest, against the defendant-Municipal Committee, Meham, has been dismissed.

(2.) According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant is a contractor. Defendant-Municipal Committee entered into a contract with him for the construction of some works detailed in Para 2 of the plaint vide work orders Nos. 1 to 4 dated 24.3.1966. The plaintiff completed the works as per work orders executed by him. A running payment of Rs. 2500/- was made by the defendant-respondent to him. It is the case of the plaintiff that balance of Rs. 3429/- is due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of work orders Nos. 1 and 2. Another payment of Rs. 750/- is due to him on account of the earth work for works Nos. 1 and 2. The works mentioned in work orders Nos. 3 and 4 were also completed by the plaintiff on 8.7.1966. A sum of Rs. 4579/- is due to him on account of these works. In all, the defendant owes him a sum of Rs. 12987.13 on account of works executed by him as per work orders, mentioned above. In spite of demands and notices, the defendant has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff. On these allegations, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 15, 0000/- i.e. principal and interest.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-Municipal Committee, it is denied that any valid contract was entered into by it with the plaintiff. The agreements, if any, were not executed in accordance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It has been pleaded that no amount is due to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was in collusion with the then President of the Committee; that the work done was 'not according to the specifications of the Public Works Department; and that the work was not carried out within the specified quality and quantity. Accordingly, it was pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff received more payment than the amount due to him. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff gave no completion certificate of any work and as such no payment could be made to the plaintiff.