R.S.A. No. 560 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 560 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.2.2009 The Punjab State & others. .......... Appellants Versus Messrs The Miri Piri Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Limited ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 13.8.2007 and 18.10.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 98,000/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand only ) for the work executed by the plaintiff-respondent on RD-0 to 4635 of Chabal distributary stands decreed with 12% a.m. interest. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery on the ground that in pursuance notice inviting tender the plaintiff-respondent applied for execution of the work. The rate of plaintiff respondent was found to be lowest. No formal contract was executed between the parties. However, R.S.A. No. 560 of 2009 -2- plaintiff-respondent was directed by the department to execute the work. On notice the suit was contested by the State on the plea that neither any contract was executed nor any work was undertaken and claim made was totally misconceived and no amount was payable. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 98,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the defendants ? OPP 2. Whether the contract RD 0 to 4645 or Chabal disty is valid ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? 4. Whether the suit has not valued for the court fee and jurisdiction ? 5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Relief.” The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to decree for the amount claimed along with interest @ 12% per annum for having executed the work under the directions of appellant. The learned Courts below rightly held that the appellant- defendants could not deny the payment to the plaintiff-respondent for having done the work as they were entitled to compensation. R.S.A. No. 560 of 2009 -3- Mr. R.L. Gupta, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law :- Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount with interest while no work order was given to respondent/'plaintiff ? In support of the substantial question of law, raised above, Mr. R.L. Gupta, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contends that in view of the positive finding recorded by the learned Courts below that no work order was placed with the plaintiff/respondent the Courts below could not have decreed the suit. On consideration of the matter, I find that the substantial question of law as framed deserves to be answered against the appellant- defendants. Once there was clear admission by the witnesses of the defendant-appellant that the work was, in fact, executed by the plaintiff- respondent and the documents placed on record showed that from time to time certain instructions were issued for execution of the work. It is well settled that even if the contract is not validly executed still the party who has undertaken the work cannot be denied compensation for the work undertaken. The substantial question of law, thus, deserves to be answered against the appellant-defendant in view of the concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff-respondent executed the work. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to calculate the compensation and, therefore, the R.S.A. No. 560 of 2009 -4- judgments and decree are not sustainable, also cannot be accepted as admittedly it was not in dispute that the rates submitted by the plaintiff- respondent for executing the work were lowest through no formal contract was executed. The amount claimed was as per tender submitted, wherein rates of plaintiff / respondent were lowest. In view of the observations made above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly ordered to be dismissed in limine by answering the substantial question raised against appellants. 6.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE