- (1.) HEARD Sri V. K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Anirudh Bhatt, counsel for the appellants and Sri J. C. Pandey, counsel for the respondent.
(2.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1992 passed by the District Judge, Pithoragarh in Civil Suit No. 16 of 1988. Briefly stated the plaintiff re spondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,096. 90 against the defendant ap pellant. According to the plaintiff he was carrying out the work of cutting, sawing and transporting the Giltas and timbers at Dhandhura-Askote Range, Pithoragarh. There were several lots in cluding lot numbers 7/84-85,8/84-85,97 84-85 and 10/84-85. The Giltas and tim bers of these lots were to be transported through head load from the lot site to river bed from where they were to be transported ahead through wire span and head load to Jauljibi Depot. The plaintiff was entrusted the work of cutting and sawing in lot no. 7/ 84-85 to 10/ 84-85. The defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff the charges of sawing and preparing Giltas @ Rs. 24/- per cubit meters and for transport ing the same up to the river bed @ Rs. 250/- per cub meters. After the execu tion of the work, the plaintiff was made payment by defendants in respect of lot no. 7/84-85, 8/84-85 and 10/84-85. The defendants did not make payment to the plaintiff with respect of the work ex ecuted by him in lot no. 9/84-85. As per the account prepared by the Accountant, the work in lot no. 9/84-85 was executed by the plaintiff worth Rs. 10,096. 90. The plaintiff served a notice under sec tion 80 C. PC. on the defendants but the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendants have filed the written statement and has denied all the material particulars alleged in the plaint. THE defendants have alleged that the plaintiff worked only in the lots as per agreed rates according to work, order. THE payment of the same has already made to him. Neither he executed any work in respect of lot no. 9/84-85 nor he was given work order for that work. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : hether the plaintiff executed contract lot the work in respect of lot no 9/s4-85 and also com pleted the same in March 1986? If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs entitled to payment in respect of work completed in lot no. 9/84-85 ? 3. Whether the defendants gave contract of lot no. 9/84-85 to one Sri Narain Dutt Patni and the payment thereof was made by the defendants to him, if so, its effect ? 4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?;