R.S.A. No. 2193 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2193 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.05.2009 District Manager, Confed, Kaithal, and another ....appellants versus M/s Sher Singh Rishi Pal and Companay, Kaithal, and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 6566-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A. No. 2193 and C.M. No. 6567-C of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decreed dated 18.2.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for mandatory injunction for release of payment for the work executed, has been decreed. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit on the pleadings that plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm which deals in business of handling food grains at Kaithal and surrounding areas. The business R.S.A. No. 2193 of 2009 (O&M) -2- carried out by the plaintiff/respondent-firm includes lifting, loading and unloading of food grains. The defendant/appellants called tenders for handling of food grains for the year 2003-04 for Kaithal Mandi. In response to the said tender notice, the plaintiffs submitted tender for handling of work. The tender of the plaintiff-firm being lowest was accepted. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondents that thereafter they were asked to take up the work of lifting, loading and unloading of food grains for Kaithal Mandi, for different period without specific contract. The plaintiff/respondents after completion of work submitted the bills as per tender submitted. The defendant/appellants did not approve the bills on the plea that the bills submitted were not as per the agreed terms, as the plaintiff/respondents were to execute the contract, at lowest rate, as per tender secured from different parties. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the contract entered into between the parties was one which was executed in pursuance to the tender submitted, therefore, the bills raised were in accordance with the agreed terms, and decreed the suit. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit are challenged in this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of mis-reading of Ex . P-17 vide which the rate to be allowed was minimum of the rate on which other contractors are agreed to execute the work, which was allowed to the plaintiff/respondents? R.S.A. No. 2193 of 2009 (O&M) -3- In support of the substantial question of law, Mr. Rajesh Garg, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. P-17 i.e. note regarding proceedings of the committee vide which certain administrative decisions were taken. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, is that in view of Ex. P-17, the bills raised by the plaintiff/respondents were not in consonance with the agreed terms, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is perverse being outcome of mis- reading of Ex. P-17. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not disputed that the only tender submitted by the plaintiff/respondents was one in response to the tender notice. The Ex. P-17 was not conveyed to the plaintiff/respondents. In absence of acceptance of Ex. P-17 by plaintiff/respondents, the terms could not be enforced against plaintiffs. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be outcome of mis-reading of Ex. P-17, as contended. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 27, 2009 R.S.