IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 RFA.No. 871 of 2008() --------------------- OS.439/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD AND BRIDGES, P.W.D.OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD AND BRIDGES, P.W.D.OFFICE, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, P.W.D.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------------- P.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS RESIDING AT PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR) SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.RAJEEV.P.NAIR THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, ALONG WITH RFA.No.873 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.F.A.Nos.871, 873, 877 & 896 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. When the above first appeals came up for consideration on 10.8.2009, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that identical question has been considered by this Court in an earlier appeal and decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the State, and hence these appeals are covered by the judgment. Accordingly, we adjourned the matter to today, so as to enable the learned Government Pleader to verify the same and to make his submissions. 2. Heard both sides. The above appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in four suits, O.S.Nos.439, 433,485 and 161 of 2004 respectively, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. All the four suits were tried together. The case R.F.A. Nos.871, 873, 877 & 896 of 2008 2 of the plaintiff in each of these suits is that he is a Government Contractor engaged by the Government pursuant to an agreement between the parties for carrying out various civil works. On completion of the contract, however, the entire amount due to the Contractor was not paid and settled. Plaintiff filed original petitions before this Court as O.P.Nos.24178 & 24179 of 1999 pertaining to two different contracts seeking for a writ of mandamus to the State to pay the balance outstanding due as per the contract. This Court allowed the original petitions directing that the admitted bill should be paid within three months from the date of receipt of that judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of submission of the bills. However, the admitted amounts were not paid within the aforesaid three months period, consequently the State became liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% as per the above judgments. Since the State did not pay interest, these suits were instituted. By the impugned judgment, following the judgment in the writ petition, interest claimed was allowed. Hence the above appeals by the State. R.F.A. Nos.871, 873, 877 & 896 of 2008 3 3. Even though it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the plaintiff having received the entire amount in full and final settlement and hence he is not entitled to claim interest, the State is estopped from contending so, in the light of the judgment between the parties rendered by this Court. The present suit is based on the interest which became payable pursuant to the judgment in the writ petition. Further, the court below has also given valid reasons for awarding the interest. When a similar cases came up for consideration in another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, R.F.A.Nos. 621 & 628 of 2008, this Court by judgment dated 9.1.2009 dismissed those appeals, holding that there is no ground to interfere. In so far as the present cases are concerned, it is identical in all respects. As per the judgment in the writ petitions, the State became obliged to pay interest at the moment they failed to pay the amount within the prescribed time, and that said judgment has become final. Admittedly, the admitted amounts were not paid within the R.F.A. Nos.871, 873, 877 & 896 of 2008 4 aforesaid period of three months. Therefore, the State became liable to pay interest. The court below has only calculated the interest payable and given its reasons. Following the judgment in R.F.A.Nos.621 & 628 of 2008 and the for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.