M/S. Bakshish Enterprises And Anr. vs State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Assam.

The present petitioners as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 416/2013 for a declaration and realization of money. The declaration was to the effect that the plaintiffs have completed a work contracts pursuant to work orders dated in respect of 09.01.2009, 12.01.2009, 28.08.2009 and there is no balance work left. A further declaration was that the letter dated 06.02.2010 relating to work order dated 12.01.2009, cancellation of work order against the plaintiff, if any cancelling work orders dated 09.01.2009 and 28.05.2009, are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

The defendants took a stand that the plaintiff did not complete the work and the plaintiff has already been paid its due for the part of work, which has been executed by it. It was also a stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs executed only a portion of the works allotted to them and they did not resume the work in spite of several requests and issuing several notices and the balance work has been withdrawn and the same was completed by the defendants engaging other contractor at a higher rate considering the urgency of the work in question.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 30 of the CPC read with Order XI Rule 14 and 15 of the CPC praying for calling certain documents.

While considering such application, the learned Court below allowed the other documents except the documents pertaining to the contractor who allegedly completed the work namely Ashoke Jain, including bills and measurement book etc. Being aggrieved the present application is filed.

The ground of rejection of such document was that the said contractor namely Ashoke Jain is not a party and therefore, the documents belonging to Mr. Jain cannot be allowed to be given to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Roy, learned Counsel Submits that the said documents are very vital as a dispute has arisen whether the plaintiffs had already executed the entire work or the said Ashoke Jain had completed the work inasmuch as it is a case of the plaintiff that, in fact the said Ashoke Jain has not executed any work.

Without going into such dispute, the fact remains that Ashoke Jain is not a party to the suit and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly not called for the bills submitted by said Contractor. However, the Measurement book relating to the alleged work executed by the said contractor is a document belongs to the State authority and therefore, the learned Court below could not have held that the MBs belongs to the contractor and therefore, such documents, the petitioner is not entitled. Further, as the case projected is that the plaintiff gas executed and completed the work, comparison of both the MBS may help the learned court below in coming into a just decision. For the aforesaid reason and backdrop, this Court is also of the considered opinion that if the MB as sought for is called, the same will also not prejudice the interest of the other contractor.

Accordingly, it is directed that the State defendant shall produce the measurement book relating to the work executed by the subsequent contractor before the learned Court below.

With the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision petition stands allowed. The earlier stay order if any passed stands vacated accordingly.