FIRST APPEAL No.153 OF 1996 (Against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995 passed by Sri R. K. Lal, Subordinate Judge, Ist, Gaya in Money Suit No. 3 of 1993) STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------(Defendants-Appellants) Versus JITENDRA PRASAD SINGH-------------------------------(Plaintiff-Respondent) ----------- For the Appellant :Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.P.III For the respondent : None Dated 10th of March 2011 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Government Pleader No.III on behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar. No one appears on behalf of plaintiff-respondent. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a very narrow compass inasmuch as all that needs to be noticed is that plaintiff-respondent being a contractor was awarded certain work for which he had also entered into four agreements. It is also not in dispute that he had completed the work to the satisfaction of the appellant and its officials of the Road Construction Department and had claimed payment of the agreed amount under the four agreements being Rs.2,62,178/-. When such payment was not made to him despite a notice under Section 80 C.P.C., he, the 2 plaintiff-respondent, had instituted the Money Suit No. 3 of 1993 claiming a decree of Rs.2,62,178/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The Court below in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties having found that there was no dispute as with regard to execution of work allotted to the plaintiff-respondent, had come to a clear conclusion that the amount of Rs.2,62,178/- was payable to him and since the said amount was not paid in time, he was also entitled for interest @ 6% per annum. 3. Mrs. Nirvikar, the learned Government Pleader No. III, has assailed the findings in the impugned judgment primarily on the ground as there were four agreements, the plaintiff-respondent ought to have filed four money suits in place of one and since that was not done the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. 4. In the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in the aforesaid submission should not overlap the substantial justice. Admittedly, all the four agreements were executed between the same parties and were related to same nature of work under the same Division. In fact, all these agreements were also complementary to each other. The law also permits a common cause of action to be made subject matter of one suit. The State 3 also did not sustain any loss inasmuch as the court fee was paid on the total amount of Rs.2,62,178/- Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the first submission made by Mrs. Nivedika Nirvikar, learned G. P. III as with regard to maintainability of the suit on account of the four agreements being made part of one common money suit. 5. She has infact fairly submitted that there was no dispute on the issue of completion of work inasmuch as plaintiff- respondent had completed the work well within time. She also not lays her hand on any material which could go to justify denying payment of the agreed amount for the work completed by the plaintiff-respondent inasmuch as there was no complaint regarding the quality of work entrusted to the plaintiff-respondent. The contractor working out the contract therefore had to be paid his amount within a reasonable time and failure to do so will definitely make the other party entering into the contract not only to make payment of the agreed amount but also compensate for delay by payment of interest. 6. This Court in this context would not find that the quantum of interest @ 6 % per annum awarded by the Court below in the impugned judgment is either excessive or are 4 arbitrary. In fact when the court below had itself scaled down rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff-respondent from 12% to 6%., the same would itself go to show that the Court below was also conscious of the liability to be incurred by the State on account of delay in payment. 7. That being so, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and consequential decree. 8. In the result, this appeal is absolutely without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Since the plaintiff-respondent has not appeared before this Court, there would be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 10th of March 2011 NAFR/kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)