BIJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties.

(2.) THIS regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the plaintiff, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th May 1991 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 204/1989, whereby the learned trial court, while dismissing the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,38,340/ -(Original Rs. 1,13,000/ -+ interest Rs. 25,340/ -), decreed the suit of the plaintiff only for a sum of Rs. 7,370/ -.

(3.) THE defendants filed their written -statements wherein they denied the contents of the plaint, as pleaded. It was admitted that a work order for a sum of Rs. 97,639/ -for supply of raw material was given to plaintiff but the plaintiff did not complete his work as per the terms and conditions of the tender/agreement. The letter dated 31st March 1987 was admitted but it was clarified that it was a letter written by the defendant No. 3 to the Assistant Engineer informing him that the total sanction amount for material component is Rs. 1,80,000/ -, but it was not a work order to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that even as per the terms of the agreement the plaintiff could have been asked to perform maximum 10% more work. But, so far as the present case is concerned, the plaintiff even had not completed the initial work, therefore, no occasion arose for defendants to give him another work order for supply of material component. The details of supplied material by plaintiff, as mentioned in measurement -book, was mentioned in Para No. 7 of the written -statement, which were amounting to Rs. 67,857/ -and, after necessary deductions, the entire amount of the bill of the plaintiff has been paid to him. It was also pleaded that as per the condition No. 8 of the agreement the plaintiff never raised his bill. The defendant No. 3 had informed to the plaintiff after payment of second running bill vide letter dated 28th April 1987 that the work of the plaintiff is very slow and the penalty may be imposed upon him and the work can be withdrawn, but he did not perform the work satisfactorily, therefore, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with special costs under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues. The Issue No. 1 was whether the defendants have not paid the amount of supplied material components to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of rs. 1,20,370/ -. The Issue No. 2 was whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 25,340/ - towards the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the defendants. The Issue No. 3 was whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to a sum of Rs. 1,45,710/ -. The Issue No. 4 was as to whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit.