ABDUL GAFFAR WANI Vs. HPSEB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant (since deceased), who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 06.03.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 41-S/13 of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 13-1 of 09/99, was modified by reducing the decree amount of Rs. 6,30,000.00 to Rs. 3,15,000.00.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,30,000.00 against the defendants, wherein it has been alleged that he is carrying on business of a Contractor and undertaking various type of works including loading, unloading and stacking of material and equipment. The defendants No. 1 & 2 required the services of the plaintiff for execution of aforesaid work for their Malyana store. The plaintiff undertaken to execute the aforesaid work, as such, the parties entered into an agreement, dated 15.10.1997, which commenced w.e.f. 01.10.1997 and was to end on 30.09.1998. As per the plaintiff since Oct., 1997 he started executing the work assigned to him by the defendants. Since Oct., 1997 to March, 1998, the plaintiff has submitted different bills to the defendants for the work done by him and total amount from the work done by him came to Rs. 4,57,349.56.00. As per the allegations in the plaint, after March, 1998, the plaintiff continued to work for the defendants, despite the fact that they were not paying him for the work executed by him. Accordingly, on 04.05.1998, the plaintiff served the defendants with a notice, wherein he claimed that he is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 11,13,793.09.00, however the defendants paid only Rs. 4,11,021.70.00 to him. Thus, for the remaining amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the defendants.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants by filling written statement, wherein it has been averred that the entire work which was done by the plaintiff, has been recorded in the measurement books of the concerned Junior Engineer. It has been further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff is at liberty to see the measurement books maintained by the Junior Engineer to reconcile the quantum of work done by him. It has been denied that any sum is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.