CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. TABITRA DEVI JOSHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong in Money Suit No. 1(1-1) of 1982. By the said judgment, the learned court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52332.54 against the defendants and damage of Rs. 8,000/-. The learned court also directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit i.e. 23.2.82. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the Cantonment Board, Shillong, its Executive Officer and the Union of India.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, who is a lady, is that she was a registered contractor of the Cantonment Board and was alloted the contract by the Board and its Executive Officer by work orders dated 27.1.1981 for repairs of Jhalupara Bazar and Paltanbazar Road and the work was initially estimated at Rs. 25,000/- for each road. The plaintiff completed the work and it has been alleged that it was so done to the satisfaction of the Board and the road was handed over on 17.2.1981. According to plaintiff, after completion of the work and after measurements were taken it was found that the works executed by the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs. 55,000/- which plaintiff has alleged was assessed by the competent officer of the Board. Accordingly, bill was submitted, but no payment was made. Thereafter, a combined notice dated 10th August, 1981, under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 273 of the Cantonment Act was issued which was duly received, but no payment was made. Hence the suit. In addition to Rs. 65,000/- plaintiff has claimed Rs. 10,000/- as damages for wrongful detention of money.

(3.) A joint written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants and it has been pleaded that the suit was misconceived and not legally tenable ; that there was no cause of action ; that it is bad for non-joinder of parties and that it was admitted that two work orders as alleged by the plaintiff for carrying out the work of the repairs for the two roads were issued in favour of the plaintiff. But it is denied that work was completed to the satisfaction of the defendants and it has been pleaded that the plaintiff had no experience in road construction. It is however admitted that the estimated cost as alleged was Rs. 25,000/-, but was denied that after completion of the work measurement and assessment were made by the defendants. According to defendants, the defendant No. 1 i.e. the Cantonment Board did not have any responsible officer to properly measure and value the work and therefore, defendant No. 2 i.e. the Executive Officer of the Board requested the Garrison Engineer, Shillong who was also the Executive Engineer, of the Board to examine technically the quality of work done by the plaintiff, and accordingly the said Executive Engineer after thoroughly inspecting and measuring the said work valued the said works at Rs. 15,693.06./- The alleged submission of bills by the plaintiff has been denied and it was further stated that there was no record with the defendants to show that the cost of the work was Rs. 65,000/-. According the defendants, plaintiff used to demand verbally from the Executive Officer, payment of the amount, but in absence of a proper demand from the plaintiff no payment could be made. Issuance of notice by the plaintiff is admitted. According to defendants under instruction of the Board, the Executive Officer intimated, the plaintiff that the work done had been valued at Rs. 15,690/- and the plaintiff was requested to collect the amount.