RSA 63/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA 63/2011 Date of decision: 21.12.2011. The State of Punjab & Ors. ....................Appellants v. Balram Rai Monga .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Vijay Chaudhary, AAG Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the Respondent. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.63 and 1363 of 2011 as similar facts and common question of law are involved in both these appeals. However, facts are being taken from RSA No.63 of 2011. Defendants/appellants are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the delayed payment. In nutshell the facts are that plaintiff/respondent is a contractor by profession. He was allotted work vide different work orders by the appellants/defendants, which works were allegedly RSA 63/2011 2 completed by plaintiff as per terms of the work order. After completion of the work plaintiff/respondent submitted bills which were approved for payment. Since the payments were made after a long delay plaintiff filed suit for recovery of interest on account of delayed payments. Upon notice defendants contested suit by filing written statement alleging therein that no payment was deliberately withheld by the defendants and the delay was due to non availability of funds. It was further alleged that plaintiff had not made any request for the payment of interest and that payments stood made to him. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the assertion made in the written statement and at the same time reiterating his claim made in the plaint. On the pleading of the parties issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence and after appreciating their evidence the trial Court decreed the suit granting interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the delayed payment for four months i.e. from the date of submission of the bills till their actual payment. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree defendant filed appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence the present regular second appeal. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have committed illegality in noticing the fact that as per terms and conditions of the work order there is no provision for payment of interest. It has further been submitted that the delay RSA 63/2011 3 occurred as the respondent/plaintiff failed to submit the bills in time. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record has come to a conclusion that there was delay in making the payment to the plaintiff/respondent, as the date of submission of bills and date of payment thereof were admitted by DW-1 Harish Kumar, SDO. As regards non existence of provision for payment of interest on delayed payment the learned Trial Court in para 10 of its judgment has observed as under:- “ DW-1 in his cross examination admitted that after completion of work, the bill was submitted by the plaintiff, amounting to Rs.7,96,527/- on 15.02.1999 and the said bill was duly submitted and approved by the defendant on the aforesaid dates and also admitted that payment of these bills Rs.7,96,527/- was made to the plaintiff on 19.02.2001 without any interest. It is also admitted by him that work regarding Phagwara Drainage Division, Jalandhar was completed and the final bill was submitted and approved for Rs.77,228/- on 19.11.1998, Rs.44,352/- on 15.03.1999 and Rs.2,25,377/- on 14.08.2001, but the payment of Rs.3,40,903/- was on 19.02.2001 and Rs.3020/- was made on 22.02.2001. No explanation has been furnished by the defendants why bills have been retained from 15.02.1999 to 22.2.2001. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjit Versus State of Punjab & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5137 to 5139 of 1998 held that “payment shall be made within 4 months and in case payment is not made within that period, appellants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 11% per annum. Similar view has been taken in petition no.6572 of 2000 decided on 20.02.2001 and Civil Writ Petition No.20249 of 2002 decided on 28.04.2003. So as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court , the plaintiff is entitled to interest RSA 63/2011 4 at the rate of 11% per annum on the delayed payments.” In view of the above finding no merit in these appeals the same are hereby dismissed. 21.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge