Karnataka High Court
Hubli Dharwad Urban Development vs Sri.Vedananda Murthy S/O Thotaiah on 28 March, 2022
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
R.F.A. NO.100528/2018
BETWEEN
HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
.....APPELLANT
(BY SRI G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)
AND
SRI.VEDANANDA MURTHY S/O THOTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:PROPRIETOR,
PREETHI CAD CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
NO 48/43, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, JNANA BHARATI,
BENGALURU.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.203/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, in O.S.No.203/2016 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff is partly decreed for a sum of Rs.14,84,005/- with interest at 9% per annum from 14.06.2013 till complete payment.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The plaintiff is a civil engineering contractor. The defendant has issued work order on 31.03.2010 to carry out work of total station/survey, preparation of KGP sheets and fixing of demarking stones in Sattur-Tadasinakoppa layout at the estimated cost of Rs.10,58,957/-. Pursuant to the work order, the plaintiff has carried out the said work and number of stones to be used for demarcation of sites were fixed. To make the payment of this stones, the plaintiff has made demand for payment of the work. The defendant has sent a reply on 03.08.2011 pointing out certain discrepancies in the work and requested him to rectify the same. Pursuant to the request of the defendant, plaintiff has carried out alleged discrepancies. Thereafter the plaintiff sent letters on 3 26.12.2011 and 04.06.2012 requesting for payment of the amount fixed under the work order together with additional sum being the cost of the usage of the additional stone but there was no response from the defendant. He has written one more letter on 27.11.2012 to the defendant. Finally, he written letters on 04.03.2012 and 29.05.2013 requesting to make payment of a sum of Rs.10,58,856/- and cost of additional stones amounting to Rs.4,25,049/- totally a sum of Rs.14,84,005/-. Thereafter, plaintiff has received a letter dated 14.06.2003 from defendant wherein he has directed the plaintiff to get the completion certificate from the survey department of the defendant and thereafter to obtain sanction from the ADLR and then the amount will be paid. Since the plaintiff has completed entire work as per the work order and that, he has not received payment from the defendant, he was constrained to file the suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.22,63,105/- with interest at 18% p.a.
3. On service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. The defendant has taken a contention that the suit is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of Section 64 of 4 Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, prior to filing the suit. Further, they have denied the work order issued in the name of plaintiff and it was issued to M/s. Preeti and Constructions, vide order dated 31.03.2010. It was also contended that as per the work order, the plaintiff has not obtained certificate from department of survey and also has not obtained sanction from ADLR as per the agreement and the work order. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has issued a work order dt.31-3-2010 and estimation amount of Rs.10,58,957/- as pleaded in the plaint?
(2) Whether defendant proves that suit is hit by Section 64 of Karnataka Urban Authority Act 1987 as contended in the written statement? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled the relief as sought for?
(4) What order or decree?5
5. After hearing the arguments, Issue Nos.1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this appeal.
6. Sri G.I. Gachchinmath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as per the agreement, after the completion of the work, the plaintiff/respondent has to get the certificate from the survey department and thereafter to obtain sanction from ADLR. Since the plaintiff has not produced the certificate from the competent authority as per the contract, he is not entitled for payment of the work he has done.
7. Per contra, Sri N.P. Vivekmehta, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has submitted that as per the work order issued by the appellant/defendant, there is no such condition. As per the work order, the plaintiff has completed his work. The same has not been disputed by the defendant. Once he has completed his work as per the agreement, the defendant has to make payment for the work done by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the oral and 6 documentary evidence has rightly decreed the suit. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused the judgment and decree and the Trial Court records.
9. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse, erroneous and, as such, calls for any interference by this Court?"
10. It is not in dispute that the appellant/defendant has issued work order in favour of the plaintiff. As per the work order, the plaintiff has completed the work and submitted the letters to the defendant to make payment for the work done by him. Admittedly, the work completed by the plaintiff has not been disputed by the defendant. However, the defendant directed the plaintiff to obtain certificate from the department of survey and to obtain sanction from ADLR. Since there is no such condition in the work order that the plaintiff has to obtain the certificate from the survey department of the defendant and sanction from the ADLR, it is not proper to direct the plaintiff to produce completion certificate and obtain sanction from the ADLR 7 which is contrary to the work order. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the parties and material available on record has rightly decreed the suit in part and justified in directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,84,005/- with interest at 9% p.a. There is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, we answer the point for consideration in the negative and accordingly, pass the following:
ORDER Appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, in O.S.No.203/2016.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Naa