- (1.) THE defendants (appellants) have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit no.149/2009 (913/04), whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed for recovery of Rs.71,661/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that appellant no.1 had invited tenders vide notice no.5/2000 for taking vehicles on rent for government purpose. In pursuance thereof, the tender filled by respondent (plaintiff) was found as the lowest and was accepted. On 21.9.2000, tender of the respondent for Rs.11,975/- per vehicle per month was approved and the work order was given for two taxi cars. The conditions were spelt out in the tender as well as in the agreement. As per the conditions of work order and the rates on which the tender was approved, the respondent was made the payment from time to time. However, the respondent claimed payment of additional amount @ Rs.2/- per km. for the vehicles which were run by the Department for more than 1500 kms. a month, which had been clearly spelt in the tender as well as in the agreement. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of this amount before the District Judge, which came to be transferred to Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan. The suit was contested by the appellants (defendants) and the claim of additional sum of Rs.2/- per km. beyond 1500 kms. a month, was denied and the learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed four issues to which both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence, and the respondent examined PW1 along with 31 documents, whereas the appellants examined DW1 and Exhibit-A1 agreement. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court decided issue nos.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the appellants. It would be useful to quote relevant portions of the Tender Document, issued by Tourism, Art & Culture Department of the Government of Rajasthan as also of the Agreement (Exhibit A-1. Clause 13 of the Tender Document, reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMItED]... Clause 4(2) of the Agreement (Exhibit A-1), reads as under :- "The conditions of the tender and contract for open tender enclosed to the tender notice No.5/2000 dated ... and also appended to this agreement will be deemed to be taken as part of this agreement and are binding on the parties executing this agreement." It is clear from above that the Taxies were hired at a monthly rent of Rs.11,975/- per vehicle. The locking mileage was 1500 kms. a month, and in case of exceeding from 1500 kms. a month, as per term 13 of the Tender Document and 4(2) of the Agreement quoted herein-above, an additional amount @ Rs.2/- per km. was to be paid. In the same manner, in the months when the vehicle ran for less than 1500 kms., Rs.2/- per km. was to be deducted also. It is the settled principle of law that when the parties entered into a documentary agreement, both are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is not the case of the appellants that they never signed the agreement or that the terms and conditions of the Tender Document were not decided by them. On the basis of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff (respondent) the learned trial court has rightly calculated the amount of Rs.71,661/- in issue no.2. The learned trial court has discussed the statements of PW1 in examination in chief as also in cross examination and has taken on record the documents under O.11 R.14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were the log books showing the extra milage run by the officers of the appellants, and the facts as well as the evidence - oral and documentary, have been correctly appreciated.
(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment impugned. Hence the appeal as also the stay application, stand dismissed.;