R.S.A. No. 1311 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1311 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.3.2009 Punjab State and others ....Appellants Versus The Red Rose Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vishal Munjal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 23.10.2007 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.10.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery on account of the works executed by him at the behest of the appellants. It was pleaded by him that the works had been executed satisfactorily, but yet his final bill was not cleared. It was pleaded that the appellants have wrongly withheld the amount of final bill of the work executed and the security amount without any reason. Recovery of Rs.60,664/- being the amount of deducted security and Rs.51,436/- being the amount of remaining executed work along with interest @ 18% per annum was thus sought. R.S.A. No. 1311 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The appellants, who contested the suit, pleaded that the work had not been done satisfactorily and in fact there was a breach on one of the banks of the canal which had been constructed by the plaintiff/respondent on account of which they had to spent a sum of Rs.52,261/- for plugging the said breach and it is for this reason that this amount with withheld. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.1,73,096/- in all as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate?OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD 5. Whether the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff due to his own act and omissions?OPD 6. Relief. The learned trial Court and the first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the amount had been wrongly withheld by the appellants and consequently ordered the decreeing of the suit along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realisation of entire amount. The appellants are aggrieved by the same and have assailed the aforesaid findings. R.S.A. No. 1311 of 2009 (O&M) -3- It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants wih reference to the testimony of DW1 Balwinder Kumar that numerous letters were written to the plaintiff/respondent pointing out the breach and the defects in the work and since the work had not been completed satisfactorily, they were very well within their right to withhold the amount due to the plaintiff/respondent. It was further pleaded that the appellants have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 52,261/- for the inadequacy of the works carried out by the respondent and consequently they were right in withholding the amount. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the testimony of DW1 Balwinder Kumar, but strangely enough this witness during the course of his testimony could not refer to any communication or notice issued to the plaintiff/respondent intimating it regarding the breach on account of which the appellants are alleged to have suffered a loss. To a pointed query by this Court learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfactorily explain this observation of the first Appellate Court. He could not show any material on the basis of which it could be said that this observation of the first Appellate Court is erroneous or perverse. DW1 has further admitted that the final bill was prepared. Rather, both DW1 Balwinder Kumar and DW2 Joginder Pal have admitted that no intimation was received by them regarding any breach having occurred in the work carried out by the respondent. R.S.A. No. 1311 of 2009 (O&M) -4- The plea, therefore, which formed the basis of the defence of the appellants, apparently seems to be hollow. No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. In this view of the matter, when both the Courts have concurrently held against the appellants and there being no material to substantiate the plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal is totally without any merit and warrants dismissal. Ordered accordingly. That apart, the appeal is also barred by a delay of 37 days which has not been explained satisfactorily. 25.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss