R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.10.2009 Chief Administrator, HUDA and others ......Appellants Versus The Sipper Co-operative Society (L&C) Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Baldev SinghAdvocate for Mr.S.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2002. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge (I), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of appeal and emerging from the plaint are that the plaintiff society through its member Puran Chand filed the suit in hand for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,71,400/- including security from the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as HUDA) regarding the road work in Sector 13, 21 and 26 Bhiwani. It is pleaded that the Sipper Co- operative Society (L&C) Limited Sipper is a registered society and Puran Chand was member of the society. The plaintiff's society worked for the defendants on agreement. The defendants assigned the work of repair of roads in Sector 13, 21 and 26 for the year 1995 to the plaintiff society which was completed as per directions and specification of the department. The officers of the defendants checked the work of the plaintiff from time to time and was found satisfactory. On completion of work, the defendants prepared final bill and entered in the measurement book and thereafter orders were also prepared and cheques were to be issued to the plaintiff but the Superintending Engineer without any excuse, withheld the cheques. It is alleged that the department R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) 3 was to disburse the amount of Rs.1,71,400/- on 19.6.1996 but the same was withheld illegally, therefore, the plaintiff society was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff society served notice dated 3.1.1998 on the defendants but to no effect, hence, this suit. 3. Upon notice the defendants/appellants contested the suit after filing written statement by taking preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, locus standi, maintainability etc. On merits it was pleaded that the work of the plaintiff firm was found defective and unsatisfactory so the cheques were not released in favour of the plaintiff society and therefore no interest was payable as per norms of the HUDA. Other averments made in the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff society is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,71,400/- from the defendants along with security amount in receipt of the road work for sector 13,21 and 26 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved inaffirmative, whether the defendants are liable to be directed to release the above said amount along with security in favour of the R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) 4 plaintiff as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit that he was entitled to receive Rs.1,71,400/- including security from HUDA regarding the road work done by it in Sectors 13, 21 and 26 Bhiwani. The case of the plaintiff was that after completion of work final bill was prepared by the department but the cheques, which were prepared were illegally withheld by the department. The case of the defendants was that the work done by the plaintiff-society was defective and not satisfactory as per the terms of the agreement and hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to release of payment in question. The suit was filed by Puran Chand, who was a member of the society and had been authorised vide resolution dated 29.7.2000 to file the suit on behalf of the society. The work in question was completed by the plaintiff- R.S.A.No. 1226 of 2009 (O&M) 5 society. Anil Kumar, SDO, examined by the defendants deposed that the work was found to be satisfactory. The payment had been stopped in view of memo No.4351 dated 10.5.1999. Inquiries were conducted ex parte against the plaintiff-society and the reports in this regard were proved on record as Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6. Learned Additional District Judge , in the impugned judgment, has observed that the first inquiry report was found incomplete and the subsequent inquiry report was made on the same lines without carrying on any further investigation. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the inquiries conducted against the plaintiff without joining it, could not be treated as binding on the rights of the plaintiff- society in whose favour the cheque had been prepared but the payment of the same had been stopped. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 08, 2009 anita