HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s Order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) Description of the case S.A. No. 100 of 2003 National Institute of Hydrology through its Director And Another Vs. Om Pal Sharma Approved for reporting Date of Decision: Initial of Judge: ............................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .............................. HIGH COURT OF UTTARANKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 100/2003 1. National Institute of Hydrology through its Director Jal Vigyan Bhawan, Roorkee District Haridwar 2. Assistant Engineer, National Institute of Hydrology Jal Vigyan Bhawan, Roorkee District Haridwar …… Defendants-Appellants Vs. Om Pal Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Datt Sharma R/o Lal Chaupal, Maktoolpur, Roorkee District Haridwar …Plaintiff-Respondent 26.3.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Pradeep Joshi, counsel for the appellants and Shri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri D. Barthwal, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hardwar in Civil appeal no. 45 of 1999. 3. Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the learned court below can go beyond the terms and conditions accepted by the parties or not? 2. Whether the learned court below can make its own interpretation to the rates agreed between the parties or not? 3. Whether the learned Court below can go beyond the evidence on record or not?” 4. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount to the extent of Rs. 76,754/- alongwith interest thereon from the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is the contractor of the defendants and he was one of the tenderer for getting the contract work from the defendant department. The defendant issued a work order on 8.8.1994 after accepting the tender submitted by the plaintiff mentioning the contract rate in that tender for the period 1994-95. The plaintiff completed the work of fitting glasses, handles, catcher and ‘Dille’, etc. as per the Work Order Contract No. 19 NIH/94 dated 8.8.1994 amounting to Rs. 93,202.80. The plaintiff has submitted the bill of aforesaid work on 17.4.1995 to the defendant. Inspite of the repeated demands, the said bill was not paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sent a notice on 10.7.1995 in reply to which the defendant have informed the plaintiff by letter dated 25.7.1995 that a sum of Rs. 23,072/- only will be paid to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 99,366/- from the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has amended the plaint that the defendants have paid the amount of Rs. 22,612/- and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 76,754/- be directed to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendants. 5. The defendants have filed the written statement submitted therein that the plaintiff was given the contract of fitting glasses, handles, dille, etc. by work order dated 8.8.1994 and in the said work order the rate for every work was given. The plaintiff cannot submit the bills against the work order and quotations submitted by him. The plaintiff has done the work to the extent of Rs. 23,072.80 and he can get the payment of the same. But the plaintiff is not taking the same inspite of repeated intimation. In paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the written statement, it has been submitted as under:- **16- ;g fd oknh dks 8-8-94 bZ0 dks ‘’kh’ks] rkj;qDr ‘’kh’ks] gSUMy] fnYys dk dk;Z Bsdk fn; x;k Fkk rFkk odZ vkMZj esa izR;sd dk;Z ds jsV fn;s x;s gSaA dzekad 3 ij izR;sd f[kM+dh o jks’kunku esa ckgj vk;s dkWpksa dks jksdus ds fy, iV~Vh yxkuh Fkh rFkk izR;sd ,d f[kM+dh o o ,d jks’kunku esa iqV~Vh yxkus dk jsV 65@& :Ik;s izfr f[kM+dh o izfr jks’kunku gSA oknh us viuh dqVs’ku jsQjsUl la[;k 1 lu~ 1994 fnukafdr 13-6-1994 bZ0 esa Hkh izfr f[kM+dh vkfn 65@& :Ik;s jsV dksV fd;k gSA oknh mi;qZDr jsV ds fo:) fcy izLrqr dj jgk gS tks fd fof/k ,oa rF;ksa ds foijhr gS rFkk ekU; ugh gSA 17- ;g fd blh izdkj mi;qZDRk odZ vkMZj fnukad 8-8- 94 bZ0 esa dzekad 4 esa izR;sd yksgs dh f[kM+dh] jks’kunku esa gSfUMy o dspj yxkus ds fy, izfr f[kM+dh o izfr jks'kunku 25@& :Ik;s jsV Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk oknh us viuh dqVs’ku fnukafdr 13-6-94 bZ0 esa Hkh izR;sd yksgs dh f[kM+dh vkfn ds izfr f[kM+dh o izfr jks’kunku vadu 25@& :Ik;s dksV fd;s FksA oknh odZ vkMZj viuh dqVs’ku ds fo:) fcy izLrqr ugha dj ldrk gSA oknh dk mijksDRk rF;ksa ds fo:) dFku xyr xyr ,oa vekU; gSA” 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:- “1. As to whether the plaintiff has done the work amounting to Rs. 93,202.80 as per work order no. 19/AE/NIH/94 dated 8.8.1994? 2. As to whether the plaintiff has submitted the bill for payment in excess of the quotation dated 13.6.1993 submitted by the plaintiff? 3. As to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 76,758/- alongwith the interest from the defendant? 4. As to whether the valuation of the suit is less after the amendment and the court fee paid is insufficient? 7. The plaintiff has produced document with regard to work done in the defendant institution and tender, copy of work order dated 8.8.1994, bill dated 17.4.1995, copy of notice sent to the defendants, intimation with regard to payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff, counterfoil of the cheques, list of document, letter sent to the defendant and reminder thereof and letter dated 116 ga towards documentary evidence. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and Sunil Jain as P.W.2. 8. The defendant have produced analysis of rate, covering letter and letter dated 28.7.1997, measurement book no. 3 with regard to fitting of window, glasses, handles, etc. The defendants have examined D.W. 1 H.S. Nanda, D.W.2 Mukesh Sharma, D.W.3 Yashpal Singh and D.W.4 Hemant Chauhan. 9. While deciding issue no. 1 as to whether the plaintiff has done the work amounting to Rs. 93,202.80 as per work order no. 19/AE/NIH/94 dated 8.8.1994, as to whether the plaintiff has submitted the bill for payment in excess of the quotation dated 13.6.1993 submitted by the plaintiff and further as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 76,758/- alongwith the interest from the defendant, the trial court has disbelieved the statement of P.W.2 Sunil Jain who has deposed that the contract was given for per ‘Dilla’. Taking into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record the trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect:- “oknh dh vkjs ls tks dksVs’ku izLrqr dh xbZ o izfroknhx.k us vius izfroknh i= ds lkFk ifjf’k"V la0 1 ds :Ik esa izLrqr dh gS tks i=koyh ij 10 d 1@5 ds :Ik esa gS vkSj oknh Mcyw01 vkseiky ’kkekZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;gh dksVs’ku mlus izfroknh dks Hksth FkhA bl izys[k esa dze la0 mij f[kM+dh vkfn dks jsV 65 :0 vafdr fd;k x;k gS ijarq oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd oknh us Bsdk izfr f[kM+dh dh nj ls ugha cfYd f[kM+dh esa yxs gq, fnYyksa ds nj ls izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj izR;sd fnYys ds yxkus dh nj 65 :Ik;s crkbZ x;h gSA oknh dh vksj ls tks ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS mlesa ih0Mcyw0 1 vkseiky ’kkekZ us Hkh ;gh dgk gS fd izfr fnYYks dk jsV 65 :Ik;s crk;k FkkA ih0MCkyw0 2 lquhy tSu tks fd izfroknh laLFkku eas vf/kdkjh Fkk us Hkh viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa Bsdk izfr fnYys dh nj ij fn;k x;k crk;k tcfd izfroknh dh vksj ls mifLFkr Mh0Mcyw0 1 ,p-,l- uUnk] Mh0MCkyw0 2 eqds’k] Mh0MCkyw0 3 ;’kiky flag us crk;k gS fd oknh dks izfr fnYys ds fglkc ls ugha cfYd izfr f[kM+dh ds fglkc ls iqV~Vh yxkus dk Bsdk fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk dSpj o gSaMy Hkh izR;sd f[kM+dh ds fglkc ls yxkus Fks A oknh dh vksj ls tks dqVs’ku izfroknh dks Hksth x;h Fkh mlesa dzekad 3 ij izfr f[kM+dh vkfn dh nj ls gh jsV 65 :Ik;s fy[kk x;k gS] ijUrq oknh dh vksj ls fQj Hkh ;g rdZ gS fd mDr jsV izfr f[kM+dh vFkok jks’kunku dk ugha cfYd izfr fnYYkk FkkA ih0MCY;w0 lquhy tSu dh ekSf[kd lk{; hfA bl lac/ak esa vR;ar Hkkzed gS rFkk mlus izys[kh; lk{; ds foijhr viuh ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr djds tks dFku fd;k gS fd izfr fnYys dh nj ls Bsdk Fkk] U;k;ky; dks xqejkg djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA ,slh n’kk esa tcfd oknh us Li"V :Ik ls viuh dqVs’ku esa 65 :Ik;s izfr f[kM+dh dk jsV vafdr fd;k Fkk rks bl dqVs’ku esa izfr fnYys dk rR; mi/kkfjr dj ysus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA i{kdkjksa ds e/; tks vuqcU/k gqvk Fkk mlds laca/k esa Li"V izys[kh; lk{; gS ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd oknh us Bsdk f[kM+dh ds ’kh’kksa dks iqV~Vh ls jksdus ds fy;s izfr f[kM+dh ds fglkc ls fy;k Fkk u fd izfr fnYys ds fglkc lsA ,sls n’kk esa oknh dks izfr fnYys ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku gksus dks dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh gSA” 10. The Trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff went in appeal. 12. The appellate court has relied upon the work order dated 8.8.1994 and recorded the finding that the rate of the work was given per item and the defence of the defendant was that the rate was Rs. 36/- for fitting the dilla instead of Rs. 65, which was disbelieved by the appellate court. The appellate court has recorded the finding that Rs. 65/- was fixed per ‘Dilla’. The findings of the appellate court to that effect are quoted below:- “blls Hkh blh fu"d"kZ dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd odZ vkMZj fnukad 8-8-94 esa ’kCn 65@& :Ik;s izfr ux fnYYks ’kCn dk fo’ksy"k gSA f[kM+dh vkSj jks’kunku dk fo’ks"k.k ugha gS vkSj blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd oknh o izfroknhx.k ds chp dk;Z ds laca/k esa tks lafonk gqbZ Fkh og 65@& :Ik;s izfr fnYys dh nj ls vkSj 25 :i;s izfr gSaMy o dSpj dh nj ls lafonk gqbZ Fkh A izfroknhx.k us izfr f[kM+dh vkSj jks’kunku ds fglkc ls dk;Z dk ikfjJfed nsus esa =qfV dh gS vkSj bl vFkZ esa okn fMxzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk vihy Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gS A” 13. On the basis of the aforesaid, the appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court. 14. I have perused the work order dated 8.8.1994 which shows as under:- Sl. No. Details of work Qty. Rate Unit Ref. Of Rates 1. 10 fdzxk- izfr oxZ ehVj okyh dkap dh pkj 4 feeh eksVh f[kM+dh] jks’kunku esa fDyi rFkk iqV~Vh ls yxkuk A lHkh lkeku] yscj] ;a= vkfn lfgr] vko’;d ikM+ f}rh; eafty rd laiw.kZ 2-50 eh2 300/- izfr eh2 2. dkap dh pknj rkj;qDr 6 feeh eksVh] f[kM+dh jks’kunku ds iYyksa esa fDyi rFkk iqV~Vh ls yxkuk] lHkh leku] yscj] ;a= vkfn lfgr] vko’;d ikM+ f}rh; ry rd laiw.kZ 2 eh2 425/- izfr eh2 3. f[kM+dh jks’kunku vkn ds dkap ds fnYys tks ckgj vk x, gSa fDyi rFkk iqV~Vh ls yxkukA lHkh lkeku] etnwj ;a= vko’;d ikM+ f}rh; ry rd] ;a= vkfn lfgr 5 ux 65/- izfr ux 4. Ykksgs dh f[kM+dh] jks’kunku vkfn esa gSfUMy] dSpj dh vkiwfrZ djuk o yxkuk] vko’;d csfYMax] yscj feL=h] Ldzw] uV&cksYV vkfn lfgRkA 20 ux 25/- izfr ux 15. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity with the finding recorded by the appellate court that the rate of fitting the dilla was Rs. 65/- per item and the same was not given for the window and ventilation. The appellate court has rightly recorded the findings of fact and has not erred in setting the finding recorded by the trial court. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law are decided against the appellate and, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 17. In H.P. Pyarejain Vs. Dasappa 2006 AIR SCW 715, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with findings of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence.” 18. In Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments v. P. Shanmugama and others (2005) 9 SCC 232, it has been held under:- “14. In our view, High Court has no jurisdiction in the second appeal to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the first appellate court after careful consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, on record. It was not open of the High Court to reverse the findings of fact as it has done.” 19. In view of the aforesaid, second appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 20. Consequently second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 26.03.2008 Avneet