FA/590/1983 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 590 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DAMODAR IRON WORKS - Appellant(s) Versus K J SHETH - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NS SHEVADE for Appellant(s) : 1,MR SS SHEVADE for Appellant(s) : 1, MRS SIDDHI D TALATI for Defendant(s) : 1, MS KSHMA V SHETH with Mr. MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned City FA/590/1983 2/4 JUDGMENT Civil Judge, Court No. 6, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1785 of 1978 dated 31.03.1982 whereby, the said suit was allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, original plaintiff, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 1785 of 1978 against the appellant, original defendant, for the recovery of Rs.13,542.90, being the amount of commission for the work executed by him on behalf of the appellant. It was the case of the respondent – plaintiff that he was appointed as a commission Agent by the appellant – defendant for the purpose of doing the follow-up work in respect of the Tenders that may be filled in by the appellant as also for securing fresh orders directly in favour of the appellant – Company from different Departments of the State. However, the appellant had not paid an amount of Rs.13,542.90 to him being the amount of commission @ 3 per cent on Rs.4,51,430/- as per the agreed terms. 2.1 In the said suit, the appellant filed its written statement vide Exhibit – 13. The trial Court framed the issues and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned decree. Hence, this Appeal. FA/590/1983 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the respondent was employed by the appellant to perform various acts on its behalf in relation to Tenders on payment of a certain percentage of commission. From the correspondence that had taken place between the parties, which formed a part of the record, it appears that the respondent had carried out the instructions given by the appellant from time to time in respect of different Tenders. It is an admitted fact that the respondent did the work of obtaining the Tender forms, after paying the requisite amount from his own pocket on behalf of the appellant and thereafter, sent the same to the appellant for realization, which were also duly honored by the appellant. 4. However, from the evidence on record, it transpires that so far as the orders that were directly procured by the respondent by his own efforts, he was to get 10 per cent commission and for the orders / Tenders that were filled in by the appellant, for which the respondent was required to do the liaison work, the respondent was to get 3 per cent commission. Thus, there existed a contract between the parties, the terms of which were unambiguous. But, the appellant failed to perform his part of the contract which, FA/590/1983 4/4 JUDGMENT ultimately, compelled the respondent to file the suit in question. 5. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned decree and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this Appeal. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*