TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant first appeal under Sec. 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 29/10/2001 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, whereby Civil Suit No.21/1996 titled as Tarachand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others for recovery of money of Rs.53,823.00 instituted by the appellant-plaintiff, had been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') instituted a civil suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as 'defendant') before the trial Court, which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur for its final adjudication.

(3.) In the suit, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the civil suit has been instituted on behalf of the plaintiff, who was a registered Contractor in the Forest Department, against the defendants for the recovery of sum of Rs.53,823.00. The plaintiff submitted his bid for the tenders invited by the Forest Department for 40 Hectors land in Jatmasi- Vinua, which was duly accepted being the lowest and the order to finish the work was issued on 15/2/1995. The In-charge/ defendant provided the lay-out of the site on 26/2/1995 and the plaintiff begun his work. The plaintiff had to stop the work, after a while, as the land turned out to be rocky and gritty. The plaintiff informed the defendants about the same and asked for permission to finish the work, as per BSR, which was refused by the defendants. The defendant No.5 consciously refused to co-operate with the plaintiff and did not make any payment towards the running bills of the plaintiff, which were essential for the completion of work. The defendant No.5 wrongly directed the plaintiff to give-up the work on the disputed land vide order dtd. 24/3/1995, for which the plaintiff was not given any opportunity to be heard and the order to seize 5% of security amount/caution money was also wrongly passed. In this regard, when the plaintiff informed the defendants that he had performed work amounting to total sum of Rs.80,810.00, he was promised to be paid an advance sum of Rs.8558.00 but the same had not been paid by the Department. It was, therefore, prayed before the learned trial Court to direct the defendants to pay Rs.53,823.00 to the plaintiff alongwith 18% annual interest from the date of claim till the date of payment.