- (1.) This regular second appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1 (wrongly mentioned as appellant/plaintiff in the memo of parties) against the Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, has been dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,03,642/- i.e. Rs. 72,225/- as principal amount and Rs. 31,417 as interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2008 till the date of filing of the suit, on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff was allotted the work of advertisement on bus stand, Sangrur. On 19.11.2007 the said work order was received by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 at Bathinda. As per the aforesaid work order the plaintiff completed the work with utmost care sincerity and to entire satisfaction of defendant No.1. The plaintiff submitted the bills for the period from June, 2008 to October, 2008 total amounting to Rs. 72,225/- . Despite repeated request the payment of the aforesaid amount was not made. Hence the suit.
(3.) Appellant defendant contested that suit on the grounds inter alia that the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties regarding the work. The plaintiff also got affixed the hoardings of State Bank of India along with the hoardings of appellant-defendant No.1-Bank, although the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for advertisement of the appellant upto 30.11.2008 and was not authorized to affix the advertisement hoardings of another bank during the said contract period. It is further pleaded that the advertisement hoardings of the appellant-bank were destroyed due to heavy winds and storm in the first weak of July, 2008. It was the duty of the plaintiff to get the same repaired and get affixed new hoardings but the plaintiff failed to do so despite repeated requests orally as well as in writing. Thus the appellant pleaded that as the plaintiff had failed to provide the adequate services to the appellant so the plaintiff was not entitled for the recovery of the suit amount. With these pleas appellant pleads dismissal of the suit.;