(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. A suit was filed by respondent Smt.Giri against present appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,16,764/- on account of the estimated cost of a house which the appellants-defendants had agreed, in an earlier litigation, to construct for the respondent- plaintiff, but was not constructed. The agreement provided that in case the appellants failed to construct the house within the stipulated period, they would be liable to pay the cost as worked out by the Public Works Department Authorities at the rates approved by the Public Works Department.
(2.) WHETHER the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Admittedly, the appellants did not get constructed a house in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff then got the estimate of the house prepared from PW-2 Surdershan Kumar Sharma, a Junior Engineer of Public Works Department. As per that estimate, which is prepared according to the government approved rates, the amount has been worked out at Rs.3,16,764/-. Plaintiff then filed a suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Appellants-defendants contested the suit. They alleged that the suit was not maintainable, plaintiff had no cause of action and she was estopped to file the suit by her acts and conduct. On merits, it was stated that the estimate had been prepared by a Junior Engineer of Public Works Department in his individual capacity and not in official capacity and that the amount assessed by him, as estimated cost, was grossly on the higher side.
(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the appellants submits that as per agreement the cost was required to be assessed by the Public Works Department, but in the present case assessment has been done by a Junior Engineer, though from Public Works Department, in his personal capacity. It is further his submission that the Junior Engineer has assessed the cost not according to the Public Works Department rates but according to the market rates.