U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. CHATTAR SINGH NEGI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Sri Chattar Singh Negi
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal, preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20 -08 -1982, passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in original suit No. 8 of 1982, whereby Plaintiff's suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 54,243.24 with the proportional costs and 6% interest per annum thereon.
Brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff - Chattar Singh Negi, a contractor in the District of Tehri Garhwal, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 73,574.38 against the Defendant. It is pleaded in the plaint that the Plaintiff obtained a contract from the Defendant for construction of approach road to 220 KW sub station at Chamba on 02 -06 -1978. The contract was in two parts. In the first part, the road was to be constructed from chainage No. 0/8 to 0/29 and the tender money was Rs. 42,456.38. The second part was construction of road from chainage No. 0/29 to 1/20, for which tender money was Rs. 25,418/ -. The work was to start on 05 -06 -1978. However, the agreement could be signed only on 08 -08 -1978, as such, the period for completion of the work i.e. 21/2 months was to expire on 23 -10 -1978. Plaintiffs case is that when he started construction of the road, he faced the difficulties due to inaction on the part of the Defendant (Appellant), as he did not get clearance of construction of road from the Forest Department, over the land, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department. The Plaintiff could complete the work where ever there was no obstruction in the construction work. It is pleaded by the Plaintiff that several times he reminded and requested Defendant to get clearance from the Forest Department so that he could complete the work. However, the Defendant did not pay any heed to it. According to the Plaintiff, for no fault on the part of the Plaintiff he was not allowed to complete the work. And even then he could complete major portion of the work. His contract was rescinded by the Defendant and he suffered loss due to the Defendant's failure to perform their part of contract, hence the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 73,574.38.
(3.)THE Defendant (Appellant) contested the suit and filed its written statement before the trial court. In the written statement, it is admitted that the contract was given to the Plaintiff for construction of the road in question. However, it is alleged in the written statement that Plaintiff did not complete the work in terms of the agreement executed with the Defendant and the contract was rescinded on 30 -11 -1978. According to the Defendant, only Rs. 2,277.57, was to be paid to the Plaintiff apart from the two running bills already paid to him and the same was deposited in the trial court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.