R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 Date of Decision:03.08.2011 Jaswant Singh ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.S.C.Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Jaswant Singh son of Gujjar Singh-appellant-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) claiming himself to be a 'A' class contractor, filed the suit for mandatory injunction, directing the State of Punjab and its Engineers-respondent- defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), to settle the accounts and to release the due payment along with interest, on account of digging of the drain(Nala), for disposal of rainy and sewerage water in Muktsar City after 07.09.2004. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. However, it was admitted that only the work was allotted to the plaintiff, for the period from 07.07.2004 to 06.09.2004, in the peak rainy season, to lift the excessive rain water accumulated around the drain, vide work order No.1066 dated 10.09.2004(Ex.D1). He R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 2 completed the said works, in pursuance of the work order(Ex.D1) and the payment of Rs.53,513/- was made, which was accepted by the plaintiff by way of voucher No.1 dated 10.11.2004(Ex.D2). In this manner, account of the plaintiff was stated to have already been finally settled. It was explained that, thereafter, the plaintiff did not deploy his tractor, nor he executed any work in this respect. The subsequent claim put-forth by him(plaintiff) was claimed to be wrong and illegal. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the controversy and the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. 4. The parties to the lis in order to substantiate their respective stands, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 16.05.2009. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 06.01.2010. 7. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 9. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff executed the work of disposal of rainy and sewerage water, as per work order(Ex.D1) with effect from R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 3 07.07.2004 to 06.09.2004. He has already accepted the amount of bill of Rs.53,513/- by way of voucher(Ex.D2). The plaintiff has duly acknowledged the payment in this regard. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiff was orally authorised and has also executed the work after 07.09.2004, so, he is entitled to additional payment in this regard, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 11. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiff did not produce any document to show that he was granted work contract order for the extended period after 07.09.2004, or he has actually executed the work in this context. The mere assertion that he(plaintiff) was orally authorised to perform the extended work by the Engineers of Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Punjab, cannot possibly be accepted, in the absence of any written contract, particularly when, the defendants have stoutly denied the same. The Govt. Departments are governed by due procedure and the defendants have to complete variety of formalities at various levels before the grant of work contract to any person. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 12. To my mind, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the appellant-plaintiff in this relevant connection. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 06.01.2010, the operative part of which is, as under:- “The perusal of the record shows that there is no record on the file that there was an agreement for extension of work between the parties. The defendants department is a Government department. A department ordinarily does not give any work or extension of work orally to any contractor for the extension of the work without any documentation. So, the ld. trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff is a very experienced contractor having experience of 40 years of Government work and such experienced person is not expected to execute any work without proper R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 4 documentation and there is no record that work was extended. The ld.counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.D5 wherein it is mentioned that the tractor was parked forcibly at the spot. If the tractor was forcibly parked at the spot unauthorisedly that does not mean that the tractor rendered services to the defendants. So, the ld.trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 13. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to indicate how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 14. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 15. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the valid grounds, to negative the claim of the plaintiff in the impugned judgments and decrees. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 16. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 5 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. August 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.3868 of 2010 6