Food Corporation of India and Others vs Richhi Pal Swami

Mahesh Grover, J.—This judgment will dispose of aforementioned Regular Second Appeal and the Civil Revision as both of them are inter-related. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/-, out of which he claimed the amount of Rs. 6,61,132.76 as principal, Rs. 3,09,867.24 as interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum, Rs. 4000/- as legal expenses and Rs. 11,740/- as court fee. It was pleaded that he was a transport contractor engaged in the business of supply of labour transportation for carrying out the activities of loading and unloading and had executed the works on behalf of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 6,61,132.76. It was further pleaded that despite the fact that notice u/s 80 of the C.P.C. was served upon the appellants, they failed to satisfy the outstanding amount.

The appellants contested the suit and disputed the plea raised by the respondent and stated that the amount due to him had already been paid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar (hereinafter described as `the trial Court''):

Whether the defendants are liable to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,61,132.76 as alleged?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and to what extent?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the defendants as alleged?OPP

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

Relief.

After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to recovery of Rs. 9,75000/- and, therefore, it decreed the suit and held him entitled to future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount, till the actual realisation.

In the first instance, the appellants had filed a Regular First Appeal (R.F.A. No. 1335 of 1999) in this Court against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar in view of the notification dated 26.8.2006 issued on the basis of Punjab Courts (Amendment) Ordinance No. 11 of 2006. the same was entrusted to the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court'').

During the pendency of the R.F.A. before this Court, the appellants had moved C.M. No. 2416/C1 of 1999 for grant of stay, which was disposed of on 2.11.1999 with a direction to them to deposit the decretal amount within two months and the respondent was allowed to withdraw the same on furnishing solvent security.

On 22.1.2000, the respondent moved an application before the Executing Court/ the trial Court for issuance of a direction to the appellants to deposit the balance decretal amount, i.e., Rs. 3,14,000/- as they had deposited only Rs. 10,64,987/-, whereas the actual amount was Rs. 13,78,000/-.

The trial Court disposed of the aforesaid application vide order dated 14.1.2005 by holding the respondent entitled to get interest on the principal amount of Rs. 6,61,132.76 for the period from 24.12.1993 to 13.11.1998 and the appellants were directed to deposit the said amount on or before 14.2.2005.

Feeling dis-satisfied with the above order of the trial Court, the appellants filed Civil Revision No. 1068 of 2005 and this Court, on 4.3.2005, stayed the payment of interest from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree.

On 3.8.2007, the First Appellate Court decided the appeal while upholding the findings of the trial Court. However, a slight modification was made regarding the interest which was reduced to 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum.

The appellants have assailed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below in the instant Regular Second Appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants/ petitioners contended that the findings of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. He has disputed the liability of the appellants/ petitioners to pay the amount as claimed by the respondent and as determined by the Courts below. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgments and decrees challenged by the appellants as well as the order dated 14.1.2005 passed by the Executing Court/trial Court are perfectly in order and no interference therein is warranted. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal as well as the revision petition deserve to be dismissed.

The respondent has proved satisfactorily that he had executed the works at the rate of 250% above the Scheduled rates, which was specified and agreed upon between the parties. The testimony of Gian Chand-DW1, who is an official of the appellants reveals that he has admitted that the works were got executed from the respondent at the cost and risk @ 195% ASOR and he was paid @125% ASOR and that he was entitled to difference of 70% which comes to Rs. 6,61,162/-. This witness rather admitted that he has no objection if the suit of the respondent was decreed as per the record, but then he tried to say that he had objection. Exhibit P8 is the limited tender notice which depicts that on failure of the M/S Harinder & Co. to resume the work, limited tenders were invited. Exhibit PW6/3 is the affidavit of the respondent in which it was indicated that he had agreed to work for the Food Corporation of India from 8.2.1991 upto the finalization of the tender enquiry which was being conducted. In document, Exhibit PW6/20, the details of the amount recoverable from the appellants have been given by the respondent. There is no evidence adduced by the appellants to off-set the evidence which has been led by the respondent.

In view of this fact, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the outstanding amount against the appellants do not warrant any interference as they cannot be termed to be perverse. The Supreme Court in Govindaraju Vs. Mariamman, and Harjeet Singh and Anr. v. Amrik Singh and Anr. (2005) 12 S.C.C. 270, held that interference with the findings of fact can be made in the Second Appeal only in case the same are perverse. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

In so far as the grievance of the appellants made in the revision petition with to the interest is concerned, the First Appellate Court has rectified the rate of interest and, therefore, nothing survives in that petition.

In the result, the impugned judgments and decrees are upheld and the appeal as well as the revision petition are dismissed.