- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 98,371/- with interest. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.10.1987 for a sum of Rs. 98,371/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,629/- as interest, in total Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Hence, the State has preferred this regular appeal.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that a work contract was given to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 Chief Engineer Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner on behalf of the State Government in pursuance of the tender dated 7.4.1969. The contract was executed on 20.5.1969. According to the plaintiff, there were reciprocal obligations of the parties for providing some facilities by the appellants and of doing work by the respondent. The details are given in the terms of the agreement and details of those terms are not relevant in view of the fact that this fact is not in dispute that the plaintiff was given contract and it started the work. It is also not in dispute as per fact stated in the written statement that the plaintiff did the work and submitted running bills periodically for which the plaintiff was given payment of the running bill amounts on 21.5.69, 8.7.69, 7.1.70, 31.1.70, 28.2.70, 31.3.70, 2.6.70 and 10.7.70, thereby total 9 bill payments have been paid to the plaintiff as admitted by the defendants in the written statement. However, it is also admitted case that when 9th running bill was submitted by the plaintiff, then the defendants recovered some amount on the ground that the plaintiff left the work and, therefore, that amount was not paid to the plaintiff. The defendants also stated that since the plaintiff left the work, therefore, its security amount of Rs. 25,000/- was forfeited. The defendants further stated that since the plaintiff left the work, they have to complete the work from their own sources by paying extra amount. However, in the written statement, there is no counter claim raised by the defendants so as to claim damages from the plaintiff on account of breach of contract. Furthermore, in para 19 of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that it did the work of Rs. 98,371.96p., details of which has been given in the Schedule appended to the plaint. For this, the defendants replied (in para 27) that they are denying the work mentioned in items No. 1 to 15 of the Schedule and, therefore, the plaintiff's contention that Rs. 98,371.96p. is due in the defendants is wrong. However, the defendants specifically have not controverted the facts that the plaintiff did not do the work, details of which have been given by the plaintiff in the Schedule appended with material particulars inspite of the fact that the defendants had specific knowledge that whether those works have in fact been carried out on spot or not. Be it as it may, mere using the words specifically denied itself cannot be a sufficient denial when the facts were in the knowledge of the defendants who could have stated that the works mentioned in the Schedule have in fact either not been executed by the plaintiff and if executed by the plaintiff, then it was unauthorisedly executed or if it was executed, then the payment of that work has been paid to the plaintiffs. However, as already stated, no such denial is there.;