ASHA ARORA, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals being First Appeal No. 209 of 2004 and First Appeal No. 333 of 2005 arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2003 rendered by the Learned Judge 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Money Suit No. 567 of 1997 which was decreed in part with proportionate costs. The first mentioned appeal is at the instance of the Defendant No. 3 the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal. The plaintiff being Ceil Computer Engineers Private Limited also assailed the judgment and decree in the aforesaid money suit on the ground that the Trial Court, while decreeing the suit in respect of the principal amount, erred in refusing to grant any interest claimed on the said sum of Rs.2,18,685.72 paise.
(2.) THE backdrop of the plaintiff's case in brief is that in pursuance of an advertisement in the daily issue of the Telegraph on 22nd December, 1992 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the plaintiff was entrusted with the contract of data entry work of 42 lac records of Individual slips 1991 Census Project of various districts of West Bengal in terms of letter dated 9th March, 1993 (Ext. 5). An agreement relating to the aforesaid contract was executed by and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 on 19th April, 1993. The plaintiff accordingly started execution of the work at its office under the direct supervision of the officers deputed by the Defendant No. 3 who inspected the data entry work and at no point of time raised any dispute regarding the quality of the work. The plaintiff duly keyed in the data entries in respect of the different districts of West Bengal in terms of the agreement and supplied the connected tapes to the defendants. Simultaneous to the execution of the work in the districts the plaintiff raised bills for the districts of Murshidabad, Coochbehar and Hooghly which were duly received by the Defendant No. 3 and payment against the said bills were made to the plaintiff without raising any objection regarding the quality of the work. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the work of the first phase relating to the districts of Murshidabad, Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri, Howrah, Burdwan and Hooghly was completed within the period stipulated in the agreement but the bills relating to the work done for the districts of Howrah and Burdwan remained unpaid. Defendants failed and neglected to make payment regarding the bills dated 16th March, 1994, 21st March, 1994 and 20th August, 1994 by raising a sham dispute for the first time by a letter dated 2nd January, 1995 regarding the alleged discrepancies between the data figures entered by the plaintiff and the control figures maintained by the defendants. By another letter dated 29th March, 1995 the Defendant No. 2 alleged about the inconsistencies and errors regarding the data figures entered by the plaintiff but assured release of the payment of the unpaid bills after checking the data of the second phase of the work. By a letter dated 24th April, 1995 the plaintiff confirmed that the errors as observed by the defendants were duly rectified as and when advised and the data was sent to the defendants fully in conformity with the control data supplied by the defendants. Inspite of repeated demands defendants did not make payment of the aforesaid three bills amounting to Rs.2,18,685.72 in respect of the work done for the districts of Howrah and Burdwan. Hence the suit for recovery of the said amount with interest.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the material averments made in the plaint have been categorically denied and it has been contended that the suit is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the defendants that while examining the work it was found that there were errors in the data keyed which was not rectified by the plaintiff inspite of being informed. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to the decree prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed. After considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the Trial Court arrived at the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for Rs.2,18,685.72 on account of the three unpaid bills dated 16.03.1994, 21.03.1994 and 20.08.1994 but they are not entitled to any interest on the said amount as there was no agreement for interest on delayed payment. Holding thus, the suit was decreed in part for an amount of Rs.2,18,685.72 only.;