when any claim is made by a contractor or a person, who is said to have executed works, it is fundamental that he shall furnish (a) details of work (b) the sanction letter/agreement issued or executed in his favour (c) the specification of the works and (d) the certification by a competent authority as to satisfactory execution of the works as per the specifications. In the instant case, the record is totally silent on these aspects. It is not as though the appellants have admitted the claim of the 1strespondent. They have categorically stated that the alleged execution of the works by the 1st respondent was without any sanction. When such a serious dispute existed, the trial Court ought to have framed an issue and required the 1st respondent to establish his case. This Court is of the view that the decree granted by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law and the matter needs to be examined afresh by the trial Court by framing necessary issues. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.318 of 2007 set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction that it shall frame the following issues:- 1. What are the items of works said to have been executed by the plaintiff? 2. Whether there existed any sanction letter or agreement for the works mentioned above and, if so, the value of the concerned works. 3. Whether the satisfactory execution of the works was certified by the authority competent under the relevant provisions of law. It shall be open for the 1st respondent as well as the appellants to adduce evidence as regards the issues referred to above.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

APPEAL SUIT No.492 of 2009

DATED: 27.08.2009

Between:

The Gram Panchayat,
Tallapudi, Tallapudi (M),
West Godavari District,
And another.                                                               ..   Appellants.

      And

Namana Parameswara Rao.                                          ..   Respondent.




































JUDGMENT:


          The 1st respondent functioned as Sarpanch of Tallapudi Gram Panchayat of West Godavari District, between 23.08.2000 and 22.08.2006. Claiming that he executed several works during his tenure and an amount of Rs.5,48,693/- remained unpaid, he filed O.S.No.318 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, against the appellants and respondents 2 to 4, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,91,702/-.  He stated that the works were executed on the strength of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and, though a demand notice was issued for payment of the amount, the appellants and respondents 2 to 4 did not pay the amount.

          The suit was mainly resisted by the appellants herein.  They filed a written statement admitting the fact that the 1st respondent functioned as the Sarpanch and conducted several works.  It was, however, pleaded that the works were not covered by any sanction letter, much less the agreements or proof of execution according to specifications.

          Through its judgment dated 20.03.2009, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, except that a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was paid by the appellants herein, was directed to be deducted. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

          Heard Sri K.Sarvabhowma Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

          The suit was filed for recovery of money, which is said to be the dues of bills, for the works stated to have been executed by the 1strespondent. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:-
         
          “1. Whether the part payment of Rs.50,000/- after filing of   
      the suit as pleaded by the defendant is true?

 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as claimed ?

 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed
     for ?

 4. To what relief ?”
         
The 1st respondent alone deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the appellants, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was filed.  The trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the 1st respondent.

          The basis for the 1st respondent to claim the amount was that he executed several works in the Gram Panchayat, on the strength of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.  Ex.A1 is the carbon copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat passed on 18.06.2006.  The specific case of the 1st respondent is that he has executed several works on behalf of the Gram Panchayat.  As and 
when any claim is made by a contractor or a person, who is said to have executed works, it is fundamental that he shall furnish (a) details of work (b) the sanction letter/agreement issued or executed in his favour (c) the specification of the works and (d) the certification by a competent authority as to satisfactory execution of the works as per the specifications.
          In the instant case, the record is totally silent on these aspects. It is not as though the appellants have admitted the claim of the 1strespondent. They have categorically stated that the alleged execution of the works by the 1st respondent was without any sanction. When such a serious dispute existed, the trial Court ought to have framed an issue and required the 1st respondent to establish his case. This Court is of the view that the decree granted by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law and the matter needs to be examined afresh by the trial Court by framing necessary issues.

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.318 of 2007 set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction that it shall frame the following issues:-
       
        1. What are the items of works said to have been executed    
            by the plaintiff?

        2. Whether  there  existed any sanction letter or agreement
            for  the  works  mentioned  above and, if so, the value of
            the concerned works.

       3. Whether  the  satisfactory  execution  of  the works was
           certified by the authority competent under the relevant
           provisions of law.

It shall be open for the 1st respondent as well as the appellants to adduce evidence as regards the issues referred to above. None of the observations made by the trial Court in the judgment under the appeal or the present judgment of this Court shall be treated as final opinion on any issue. The trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
27.08.2009
v v

         
         
           

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.