DINESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. PREM GAZTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., dated 31.12.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 69-S/13 of 2001.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted a suit for recovery. The plaintiff is a private contractor. He has undertaken the construction work of the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). In the month of March, 1994, he has carried out some construction work of the building of the defendant till the month of August, 1994. He was engaged by the defendant at the instance of one Sh. S.S. Bhurji, architect. According to the plaintiff, at the time of entering into agreement, the defendant had agreed to pay him for the construction work at the rates prescribed by the H.P. PWD with 125% rise as per the cost index. A sum of Rs. 62,965/- was found due to the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant has paid him Rs. 17,000/- only. He also claimed interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. He has categorically denied that he had agreed to pay labour charges on PWD rates, as claimed by the plaintiff. The case set up by the defendant was that he agreed merely to pay for the construction work at the rate of Rs. 11/- per square feet for laying slab and at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet for the construction of column and beams. He had already paid Rs. 18,500/- to the plaintiff on different occasions. The plaintiff had also taken 20 bags of cement from the defendant for which he had failed to account for. The defendant claimed a sum of Rs. 2640/- against the plaintiff for 20 bags of cement at the rate of Rs. 120/- per bag. Thus, according to the defendant, a total sum of Rs. 21,140/- had already been paid to the plaintiff.