RSA No.3141 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3141 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2010 Punjab State and others ......Appellant(s) Versus The Gharukwind Co-op. L&C Society Ltd. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. Advocate General, PUnjab, for the appellants. Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Compliance of order 41 (1)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been made. However, the appeal has been heard on merits. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.2,55,383/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been decreed and the plaintiff-respondent has been held entitled to recover the amount of final bill for all the works in dispute, to be prepared and sanctioned by the appellants in accordance with law. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,98,888/- along with interest @ 18% per annum against the appellants pleading that the plaintiff-respondent had executed the works after the same were allotted in its favour by the appellants. Despite the fact that the aforesaid works were completed, the concerned officials of the appellant-Department failed to make the payment of the executed work and RSA No.3141 of 2009(O&M) 2 flatly refused and therefore, the necessity arose to file the present suit. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the works as mentioned by the plaintiff were allotted to it and the same was executed. However, it was pleaded that there was no delay on the part of the Department to make the payment as the plaintiff-Society had not submitted its final claim and therefore, the final payment could not be made. It was also pleaded that there was no clause in the work order to pay interest. It was also pleaded that the appellants were entitled to recover some amounts which were paid during the execution of the work in excess. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff- Society failed to establish that it had ever submitted its claim to any of the officers of the defendant-Department and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the decree, as prayed and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. On reappraisal of evidence, the Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,55,383/- subject to rectification of arithmetical and mathematical calculations and was also entitled to recover the amounts of final bill for all works in dispute to be prepared and sanctioned by the appellants in accordance with law. The plaintiff-respondent was also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the above mentioned amounts and resultantly, appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.4.2009. RSA No.3141 of 2009(O&M) 3 Feeling aggrieved from aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover amount from the appellant-defendant? (ii) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the 18% interest from the appellant/defendant?” yet he could not substantiate the same by pointing out any material evidence in favour of the appellants which was ignored by the Lower Appellate Court while deciding the case. There is no dispute that the work was allotted by the appellants and the same was executed by the plaintiff-respondent. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was being denied only on the ground that it had failed to submit the final bill of its claim for the work executed. However, it has been admitted by Sh. Amal Kumar, Divisional Accountant of the appellant-Department, while appearing as DW-1, that final bill as per the Departmental rules was to be prepared by the appellant-Department. Thus, I find no error in the findings of the fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court against the appellants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal as submitted. No merits. Dismissed. July 6, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3141 of 2009(O&M) 4