CR No. 1300 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1300 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.7.2009 N.S. Bedi Building Contractor ....Petitioner. Versus Raj Hussain ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. By way of instant revision, the defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Panchkula, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, 24.12.2007, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.17,160/- along with interest was decreed after permitting him to sue as 'forma pauperis'. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the defendant had engaged the plaintiff to cast and affix the slabs on C-Sector Nallah at Chandimandir Cantonment at the rate of Rs.20/- per slab and in this regard agreement dated 22.10.2001 was executed between the parties. The plaintiff cast 908 slabs out of which 608 slabs had already been CR No. 1300 of 2009 -2- affixed on the Nallah as per the terms of the agreement and out of the total amount of Rs.18,160/- the defendant had paid Rs.1000/- only to him towards the agreed amount of the labour rate. It was pleaded that the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the balance amount in instalments during the continuation of work but the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further pleaded that on 17.1.2002 at about 8.00 P.M., the defendant entered in the house of the plaintiff and threatened him of dire consequences if he approached the Assistant Garrison Engineer or any other higher authorities of MES under whom the defendant had got the contract. The plaintiff got a legal notice dated 22.1.2002 served upon the defendant through registered AD and UPC for making payment of the balance amount but to no effect and this gave rise to the filing of the suit for recovery of Rs.17,160/- along with interest. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised therein. It was pleaded that the defendant was issued a tender on 30.8.2001 for affixing the slabs which was to be completed on 29.12.2001. The plaintiff was engaged on 22.10.2001 to cast the slabs and affix the same on Nallah at Chandimandir Cantonment who further engaged his brother and three labourers to complete the said job. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had received a total sum of Rs.14,000/- from the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff left the job in between without any reason and he had to engage other labour for completing the work which cost him Rs.15,000/-. It was next pleaded that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into an agreement which CR No. 1300 of 2009 -3- was reduced into writing on 22.10.2001 but the said writing was tampered with by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had only cast 500 slabs and had not affixed any of the slabs till the end of December, 2001, when he left the job. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues, out of which issue No.1 which is material was to the following effect – “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.17,160/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization?” The trial court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties while deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff noticed that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.18,160/- and since an amount of Rs.1000/- had already been paid by the defendant, the balance amount of Rs.17,160/- was payable by him. The claim of the plaintiff with regard to interest at the rate of 24% per annum was declined as there was no agreement in respect of the rate of interest. It was further noticed that in the light of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was entitled to interest only at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, a decree dated 24.12.2007 was passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.17,160/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from January, 2002 till its realization. On appeal by the defendant, the said decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2008. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the CR No. 1300 of 2009 -4- learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgment and decree passed by the courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE