FAUJ DAR CHAUHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS Vs. SECRETARY (AGRICULTURE), GOVT OF H P SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2 AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased plaintiff instituted, a suit against the defendants, for recovery of Rs.1,53,817/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, for a sum of Rs.46,556/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff standing aggrieved by the impugned verdict, hence, concerts to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff was a welding contractor. He has done various works of welding for the defendants when he was so asked by defendant No.2. These welding works were done under the supervision of Sh. Prakash Chand, Asstt. Engineer of defendant No.2, the bills of which amounting to Rs.80,780/- and Rs.46,556/-, were verified and passed by the concerned official of the defendants but the amount of the bills has not been released. It is further alleged that for execution of these works, the plaintiff obtained temporary connection of electricity for which he paid a sum of Rs.1548/- as electricity charges and now he is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, non joinder of necessary parties, want of cause of action and limitation. It is pleaded that there was no legal contract inter se the parties as per the provisions of article 299 of the constitution of India for execution of any work and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. According to the defendants, defendant No.2 had never asked the plaintiff to do any building work under the supervision Sh. Parakash Chand Extra, Asstt. Engineer and the bills in question are the wrong bills. It is denied that the plaintiff submitted any bills amounting to Rs. 80780/-. With respect to the bills amounting to Rs.46,556/-, it has been pleaded that while doing some work plaintiff had submitted a bill of Rs.46,556/- only for the year 1999 to Sh. Prakash Chand but neither this bill was handed over to any authority of the Govt., nor those were given to his successor by Sh. Prakash Chand after his retirement. It is pleaded that if any work has been done by the plaintiff, it has been done without fulfilling any codel requirements and therefore, the submission of any bill by the plaintiff does not arise.