RSA No. 1051 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.8.2009 (i) RSA No. 1051 of 2006 The Khundar Uttar Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents (ii) RSA No. 1493 of 2006 The Khundar Uttar Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). This order shall dispose of RSA No.1501 of 2006 and 1493 of 2006 arising out of suit for recovery of Rs.4,61,110/-. The suit was decreed partly in the sum of Rs.1,63,820/-. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal in which the plaintiff filed cross- objections. The appeal was allowed and cross-objections dismissed, RSA No. 1051 of 2006 (2) therefore, the plaintiff has filed two appeals thereagainst, as referred to above. The learned first Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the work by it. It was found that mere calling of tenders is of no consequence with respect to liability of the defendants. It was further found that PW1-Prem Singh, Junior Engineer, has been maintaining measurement book without having any authority with respect to the disputed work. The book was never verified by any senior officer nor work allegedly done by the plaintiff was verified at the spot by any other senior officer. The oral directions of SDO Balwant Singh were also not proved on record. Since the work carried out by the plaintiff is not proved to be executed on the basis of evidence on record, the learned first Appellate Court, has rightly found that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any sum of money. Such finding is based upon appreciation of evidence. It is not disputed that the measurement books are required to be verified. Such measurement books have not been verified by any senior officer nor it is proved that Prem Singh, Junior Engineer, was authorised to record entries in the books. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeals. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31-08-2009 ds