IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 5070 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: October 13, 2011 Municipal Council, Sultanpur Lodhi and another .. Appellants Vs. Gurdarshan Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Anil Dhawan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of `2,59,525/-. However, in appeal filed by Gursharan Singh respondent- plaintiff (herein referred as, 'the respondent'), the appellate court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for recovery of the entire amount of `12,51,289/- along with interest @ 12% per annum on which date the amount becomes payable till realization of the same as originally claimed by the respondent. The facts in the background of the case are that the respondent- appellant (herein referred as, 'the appellant') being a contractor was allotted work order by the Municipal Corporation, Sultanpur Lodhi, in the year 1995-96. Pursuant to that, the respondent had deposited an earnest money to the tune of `71716/-. The work allotted to the respondent was completed by him. The respondent also made some payment of the work done by him. The respondent had also deposited security to the tune of `2,93,094/- at the time of allotment of work which was required to be refunded to him. However, since the appellant failed to make entire payment, therefore, he had to file a suit for the recovery of `12,51,289/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the appellant under the following heads :- R.S.A. No. 5070 of 2010 (O&M) -2- a) A sum of `2,93,094/- as refund of security along with interest fully described in Annexure -1 attached with the plaint (Principal amount of `1,90,350/- interest `1,02,744/-). b) A sum of `7,86,479/- as amount of the work done and earnest money for the work completed by the plaintiff along with interest fully described in Annexure -2 attached with the plaint (Principal amount of `5,10,719/- interest `2,75,760/-). c) A sum of `71,716/- as refund of earnest money fully described in Annexure-3 along with interest (Principal amount of `45,400/- interest `26,316/-) The appellant contested the suit and further submitted that in fact on 21.4.1998, the appellant passed the resolution for holding enquiries against all the work done by the earlier contractors where upon, it was detected that some false and bogus claims have been raised by the respondent, therefore, he is not entitled to recover any amount from it. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover `12,51,289/- from the defendant as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled to get?OPP 3. Whether the suit is within time?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the instant suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee?OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred as the provisions of Section 49of Municipal Council Act have not been complied with by the plaintiff?OPD 8. Relief. R.S.A. No. 5070 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The trial court initially vide judgment dated 26.8.2002 had partly decreed the suit for recovery of `2,59,525/- against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed an appeal, which was accepted and the suit for the entire amount was decreed. After hearing arguments of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that this is simple suit for recovery of the amount and no question of law arises for determination. The issues so settled have been elaborately discussed and proper findings have been returned by the courts below. No force could be found in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited on account of earnest money and security could be retained by the Corporation because the respondent had completed the work and the Corporation could only hold the aforesaid amounts up till three months. Since this amount has not been paid, therefore, the appellant was certainly liable to repay the said amount. As regards the argument with regard to plea of limitation, learned counsel has failed to point out specific provisions which may invite this court to hold that the suit was beyond limitation. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has stated that since the respondent has been paid sufficient amount earlier, but the court has not taken into consideration the said amount while passing the award. In this regard, it may be observed that the counsel for the respondent has not disputed the payments which were made by the Corporation under proper receipts and he is ready for deduction of the said amount at the time of payment. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the judgment that the respondent would be entitled to receive the amount which is due against the Corporation after making the deductions on account of the part payment made to him along with interest from the date on which it becomes due against the said remaining payment. October 13, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge