AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
On 15.09.2012 the plaintiffs (respondents herein) had instituted a Suit seeking a money decree for recovery of an amount, in relation to an amount of Rs. 1,64,676/- along with the interest as accrued and payable on it, which as per the plaint averment it is said to have fallen due to be paid by the defendant/appellant of the Suit.
As per the plaint averment, it is the case of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) that they are engaged in the architectural work and they are rendering services on payment of charges as the interior designers and planners. Their case is that as far as in 2007 the defendant/appellant, i.e. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Ramnagar, had intended to float a project to construct a Shopping Complex, Canteen and a Mini Transport Nagar by way of enforcing the project in Phase-1 and Phase-2, as per the plaint case the plan of the said project was laid down by defendant no. 3.
In order to undertake the aforesaid project, the defendant/appellant (Nagar Palika herein) has had to have a consultancy assistance of experts architects and for which it is an admitted case of the defendant (appellant herein) that they have issued an advertisement in the newspapers and had invited the application from the probable services of consultancy from a qualified architect for the purposes of meeting out the essentialities of the project as mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement. It is the case of plaintiff that in pursuance to the said advertisement as issued by the defendant (appellant herein), the plaintiff/respondent is said to have extended his offer for providing the services, by filing an appropriate application before defendant/appellant on 23.10.2007, which was accepted by the Executive Officer, i.e. defendant no. 3 in the Suit, and in accordance to the terms of advertisement a panel of architects experts was appointed by defendant/appellant, which included plaintiffs (respondents herein) and he was assigned with a reference No. as NPPR/CERT/01/2007 on 20.12.2007. The work which the plaintiffs/respondents had to undertake was the work of laying down specifications, assessment of cost of project, designing, laying down of the site plan supervising of the work, thus, it was settled that in lieu for the aforesaid works the plaintiffs would be entitled for service charges equivalent at the rate of 1.45 percent of the total cost of the project and for other work the service charges, which was made payable was at the rate of 1.25 percent of the total cost of the project, which was made due to be paid on the aforesaid project and the settlement/contract, which was executed by the Executive Officer was that of 26.12.2007.
On a consent being extended by defendant/appellant, with regards to the acceptance of offer of the plaintiffs/respondents. The Project Officer's letter dated 27.12.2007, being an Office Memorandum / 3 or Nirman Anubhag on 2008 a consent was extended with regards to the proposal/offer extended by the petitioner on 23.10.2007.
The Nagar Palika, i.e. the defendant (appellant herein) vide its Board's Resolution No. 9 dated 26.12.2007 for the purposes of laying down the aforesaid project of Shopping Complex, Mini Transport Nagar, Canteen, etc., its computation of the total estimated cost of the project the design and for laying down of the plan and the lay out, it is an admitted case of the defendant/appellant that they have settled the acceptance of the said offer of the plaintiff/respondent by agreeing for paying them a total cost of the service charges for the services rendered by them at the rate of 1.25 percent of the total cost of the project.
According to the total assessed cost of the project it was determined as to be an estimated cost of about Rs. 1,13,57,000/-. Hence, according to the plaintiffs/respondent, that as per the total estimated cost thus assessed and in the light of the services provided by the plaintiff/respondent and as per the settlement and terms of agreement, which was arrived at by the defendant/appellant on 26.12.2007, i.e. the plaintiff/respondent would be entitled for their service charge at the rate of 1.25 percent, i.e. equivalent to a total amount of Rs. 1,64,676.00. The plaintiffs/respondents for the purposes of getting the said amount determined and be paid by defendant/appellant, it is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they have submitted the bills before the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, but the same was not honoured nor any action was taken on the same. Consequently, as per the communication made by defendant/appellant vide its Office Memorandum dated 30.04.2011 vide its letter No. 2699/3/स. नि. अनु/11-12, a denial was made from making payment by defendant/appellant for the service charges, on the pretext that since the bill submitted by plaintiff/respondent was with regards to the services extended by the plaintiff/respondent in relation to the aforesaid project, because the same was since not verified and, hence, no payment could be made until and unless the bills are presented for payment after its verification.
The case of the plaintiff/respondent in the Suit was that despite of several attempts made for the purposes of ensuring the payments of the service charge due to be paid to them, which stood determined as per its criterion since it already stood settled between the plaintiff/respondent and appellant on 26.12.2007. When the same was not remitted rather to the contrary defendant/appellant had made a communication on 21.03.2012, requesting the plaintiff/respondent that earlier bill, which has been submitted by the plaintiff for its remittance the details of the same may be resupplied so that the same may be verified by the office of the defendant/appellant.
It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that in response to the letter of the Executive Officer dated 21.03.2012, the plaintiff/respondent has responded and has submitted his details along with the details of the amount due to be paid for the services rendered and the head under which it was payable was also supplied by the plaintiff/respondent on 07.07.2012, but when despite of the supplying the said information as solicited by the Nagar Palika on 21.03.2012, when the same was still not considered and no payment was made the applicant/plaintiff was left remedyless, because even thereafter when meeting of the Nagar Palika was conducted under the Chairmanship of its President on 31.07.2012, certain discrepancies were pointed out by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, which later stood rectified, wherein, thereafter he is said to have recommended for making the payment on 01.08.2012 based on the verification and enquiry conducted between the parties, which was submitted by the plaintiffs/respondents in respect to queries made from him.
When despite of the aforesaid process being over which was being resorted to by the Nagar Palika the bill was not paid still, then it gave a cause of action to the plaintiffs/respondents to file the Suit for the relief as prayed therein, which is quoted hereunder:
"11. कि वादी माननीय न्यायालय से निम्न अनुतोषों को प्राप्त करने की प्रार्थना करता है-
अ) कि वादी के पक्ष में तथा प्रतिवादीगणों के विरूद्ध 1,64,676/- रू0 मय प्रचलित ब्याज दर की डिक्री बनवाकर वादी को दिलवाये जाने के आदेश पारित करने की कृपा करें।
ब) कि प्रतिवादीगण द्वारा वादी को पहुंचाई गई मानसिक क्षति के लिए माननीय न्यायालय जो भी उचित प्रतिकर धनराशि दिलवाये जाने को आदेश पारित करेंगे उस पर ही उचित न्याय शुल्क अदा करने को तैयार है।
स) कि वादी को प्रतिवादीगण से वाद व्यय की धनराशि दिलवाये जाने के आदेश पारित करने की कृपा कर दी जाये।
द) कि अन्य कोई अनुतोष जो वादी के पक्ष में है तथा प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध हो वादी को दिलवाये जाने के आदेश पारित करने की कृपा कर दी जाये।"
However, it will not be out of place to mention that when despite of the best efforts made by the plaintiffs/respondents, when the bill for the total amount due, i.e. of Rs. 1,64,676/- as a service charge was not remitted to the plaintiffs/ respondents, he is said to have served notice to the defendant/appellant through his advocate on 18.05.2012, as well as a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also a notice was also served under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, but when despite of the expiry of the stipulated time period as provided under the notice by the plaintiff/respondent, when no amount was paid, hence, lastly it is contended by the plaintiff/ respondent that on 01.08.2012 the plaintiff/respondent has requested the Executive Officer to honour the bills presented by the plaintiff/respondent, which he has also clarified that on 17.07.2012 it gave him a cause of action to institute the Suit for recovery of the said amount.
The Suit was contested by the defendant (appellant herein) by filing a written statement before the Trial court and in the written statement apart from the fact that the defendant/appellant has admitted with regards to the fact of settlement dated 26.12.2007 arrived at between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant with regards to availing the services of expertise as an architect and they have also admitted their liability to pay the amount of service charges at the rate, i.e. as settled to be at the rate of 1.45 percent of the total cost of the project, but since as per the resolution of 26.12.2007 it is contended by the defendant/appellant that the bills since it was not verified the amount as claimed for could not be remitted to the plaintiffs/respondents.
What is important is that in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the entire determination as to the manner in which the said agreement was concluded for availing the services of the plaintiffs/respondents and the settlement, which was arrived on 26.12.2017 are the facts, which stands fortified and admitted by the defendant/appellant in their written statement, but the only distinction, which they have carved out is pleaded in paragraph 14 & 16 of the written statement, which is quoted hereunder:
"14. यह कि प्रतिवादी नं0-3 द्वारा वादी से पुनः बिलों से सम्बन्धित आंगणन मांगने के उपरान्त वादी द्वारा फेज-1 एवं फेज-2 के जो आंगणन प्रस्तुत किए गए उनमें निर्माण लागत का आंगणन रू0 1,27,09,719.00 (एक करोड़ सत्ताईस लाख नौ हजार सात सौ उन्नीस रूपये) अंकित था, जबकि निविदा आमन्त्रित की गई रू0 1,33,99,766. 00 (एक करोड़ तैंतीस लाख निन्यानवे हजार सात सौ छियासठ रूपये) की जो कि वादी से प्राप्त आंगणन से भिन्न है। वादी द्वारा आने आंगणन के विपरीत बिल रू0 1,33,99,766.00 (एक करोड़ तैंतीस लाख निन्यानवे हजार सात सौ छियासठ रूपये) पर चाहा गया है, इस आधार पर भी वाद खारि योग्य है।
यह कि वादी द्वारा रू0 1,13,57,000.00 (एक करोड़ तेरह लाख सत्तावन हजार रूपये) के निर्माण कार्य को जो कि फेज-1 एवं फेज-2 व कैन्टीन भवन हेतु प्रतिवादी संख्या-3 के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किए गए वह कार्यादेश दिनांक 27.12.2007 के एक माह दो दिन में ही सम्पूर्ण निर्माण कार्य सम्पादित किए जाने की आख्या सहित प्रस्तुत किए गए हैं, जबकि इतने वृहत्त स्तर व धनराशि से किए जाने वाला निर्माण कार्य 01 माह 02 दिन में पूर्ण नहीं हो सकता है। इस आधार पर भी वाद खारिज योग्य है।"
Hereinabove they have submitted that since the bills, which was submitted by the plaintiffs/respondents were not verified as per the procedure prescribed therein and coupled with the fact that they have conducted certain derogation to the terms of the contract, hence, the amount could not be remitted based on the aforesaid pleading. The learned Trial Court based on aforesaid rival pleadings has on 28.02.2013 has framed the following issues:
"1. क्या वादी प्रतिवादीगण से मुव. 1,64,676/- (एक लाख चौसठ हजार छः सौ छियत्तर) वसूल करने का अधिकारी है?
क्या वाद में प्रतिवादी सं0-1 व 2 के कुसंयोजन का दोष है?
क्या वादी को प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध वाद संस्थित करने के सम्बन्ध में वाद हेतु प्राप्त है?
क्या वादी द्वारा वाद का उचित मूल्यांकन किया गया है?
क्या वादी द्वारा उचित न्याय शुल्क अदा किया है ?
वादी क्या अनुदोष यदि कोई हो तो प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?"
At this stage itself it is relevant to point out that admittedly the defendant/appellant had denied the plaint allegations that too merely on the ground of non-verification of the bills presented by plaintiffs/respondents despite of the fact that defendant/appellant being conscious that in response to the letter of defendant/appellant the plaintiffs/respondents did supply the verified bills for its payment to the Nagar Palika on 17.07.2012, but still the same was not honoured by the defendant/appellant. Even let us presume that the plea taken by the defendant/appellant in the written statement was if at all sustainable, then it was incumbent on the defendant/appellant that at the time when the Court was seized with the process under Order 14 Rule 1 of framing of the issues defendant/appellant ought to have got the issue framed by invoking provisions contained under Order 14 Rule 5 for getting the same adjudicated with regards to the effected of the non-verification of the bills as presented by the plaintiffs/respondents by getting appropriate issue framed whether it would at all create any obstacle in remittance of the amount to be paid to him in relation to the charges as due to be paid under the agreement dated 26.12.2007 and as narrated in the plaint, but unfortunately no such effort was ever made by the defendant/appellant before the learned Trial Court to get an appropriate issue framed with regards to the effect of non-verification of the bill towards their liability to pay an amount under the contract. Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure is quoted hereunder:
"5. Power to amend, and strike out, issues-
(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed.
(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced."
The Suit proceeded and the learned Trial Court after consideration of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties with regards to the claim of Rs. 1,64,676/- the learned Trial Court on considering the evidence and relying on its pleading of parties, it is an admitted fact that prior to the initiation of the proceedings by way of filing of Suit on 15.09.2012 by the plaintiffs/respondents, the notice paper No. 5ga / 14 dated 08.05.2012, the postal receipts, i.e. paper No. 5ga / 15 and various other documents were also produced in original to substantiate that the bills of the plaintiffs/respondents were verified by the Nagar Palika and despite of the appropriate verification process, which was undertaken, Trial Court had concluded that the payment which admittedly fell due to be paid to the plaintiffs/respondents was not remitted by defendant/appellant.
The learned Trial Court while determining the prime issue that was issue no. 1, on an appreciation of the evidence particularly with regards to the consent extended by the Board on 26.12.2007, which was placed on record as paper no. 5ga 2 and the rates thus settled, and which was accepted by the Nagar Palika, as extended in evidence by the plaintiff by way of paper No. 5ga 3, the Court held while recording its finding on issue no. 1, in its particularly finding as contained in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Trial Court that the bills were verified prior to its presentation for payment, which was submitted by the plaintiffs/respondents and the finding in that regard has been recorded in the Trial Court's judgment holding thereof that defendant/respondent, as per the settlement arrived at between the parties on 26.12.2007, the plaintiffs/respondents would be entitled for the remittance of the service charges to the tune of Rs. 1,64,676/-. The finding of the learned Trial Court in that regard is quoted hereunder:
"18. इस प्रकार इस गवाह के साक्ष्य से यह सिद्ध होता है कि यह गवाह मामले के तथ्यों से अनभिज्ञ है। प्रतिवादी का तर्क है कि वादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत बिल का भुगतान नगर पालिका परिषद रामनगर द्वारा कर दिया था, परन्तु प्रतिवादी की ओर से ऐसा कोई प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है, जिससे यह प्रकट हो कि वादी को उसे द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये बिल मुव. 1,64,676/- (एक लाख चौसठ हजार छः सौ छियत्तर) का भुगतान कर दिया गया हो। प्रतिवादी सं0-3 की ओर से प्रस्तुत जवाबदावे के पैरा सं0-5 में यह कहा जाना कि जो बिल प्रस्तुत किया गया था, वह वादी द्वारा सत्यापित व हस्ताक्षरित होना चाहिए था, क्योंकि वादी ही अधिकृत था, इस कारण बिल का भुगतान नहीं किया जा सकता था। इस प्रकार इन स्वीकारोक्तियों से यह सिद्ध होता है कि वादी के उक्त बिल का भुगतान नहीं किया गया और प्रतिवादी सं0-3 द्वारा इस पर अड़चन, इस आधार पर लगायी गई कि वादी द्वारा जो बिल प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं, वह वादी द्वारा सत्यापित व हस्ताक्षरित नहीं किये गये हैं, परन्तु नगर पालिका परिषद रामनगर द्वारा वादी को बुलाकर या उक्त बिलों को डाक द्वारा भेजकर सत्यापित व हस्ताक्षरित करवाया जा सकता था, परन्तु प्रतिवादी सं0-3 द्वारा ऐसा नहीं किया गया। प्रतिवादी सं0-3 द्वारा यह कहा जाना कि वादी को प्रश्नगत कार्य का कार्यादेश दिनांक 27.12.2007 को जारी किया गया था, जबकि अधिशासी अधिकारी द्वारा अवर अभियन्ता को कार्य का सम्पादन प्रमाण-पत्र दिनांक 25.02.2007 को जारी कर दिया गया, परन्तु इसमें वादी का कोई दोष प्रतीत नहीं होता है। यदि इसमें कोई दोष है, या कमी है, तो तत्कालीन अधिशासी अधिकारी नगर पालिका परिषद रामनगर एवं अवर अभियन्ता के पार्ट पर है। इस कमी की वजह से वादी के बिलों के भुगतान में अड़चन लगाया जाना न्याय संगत नहीं है, क्योंकि वादी द्वारा जो बिल प्रस्तुत किया गया है, वह पत्रावली पर दाखिल आगणन कागज सं0-26ग/7 व उसके साथ प्रस्तुत किये गये मानचित्रों आदि के आगणन मूल्य मुव. 1,13,57,000/- (एक करोड़ तेरह लाख सत्तावन हजार) के 1.45 प्रतिशत की दर से पारिश्रमिक हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है, इस आगणन की दर के प्रस्ताव को नगर पालिका परिषद के अधिशासी अधिकारी द्वारा पत्रावली पर दाखिल कागज सं0-5ग/4 निविदा स्वीकृति पत्र दिनांकित 29.12.2007 में स्वीकार किया है। इस प्रकार पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध दस्तावेज एवं मौखिक साक्ष्य के अनुशीलन से यह सिद्ध होता है कि वादी द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं0-3 नगर पालिका परिषद रामनगर के मिनी ट्रांसपोर्ट नगर, बारात घर व सुपरविज के सम्बन्ध में जो आगणन वादी द्वारा तैयार किया गया, इसका पारिश्रमिक वह नगर पालिका परिषद के प्रस्ताव और स्वीकृति की कुल आगणन मुव. 1,13,57,000.00/- (एक करोड़ तेरह लाख सत्तावन हजार) की दर 1. 45 प्रतिशत के अनुसार मांगा गया है, जो मुव. 1,64,676/- (एक लाख चौसठ हजार छः सौ छियत्तर) है और इस धनराशि का भुगतान वादी द्वारा कई बार मांग किये जाने के बावजूद भी प्रतिवादी सं0-3 नगर पालिका परिषद रामनगर द्वारा नहीं किया गया है। इसलिए वादी उक्त धनराशि प्रचलित ब्याज दर पर वसूल पाने का अधिकारी है। तद्नुसार वाद बिन्दु सं0-1 वादी के पक्ष में तथा विरूद्ध प्रतिवादी सं0-1 वादी के पक्ष तथा प्रतिवादी सं0-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है।"
Consequently, the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ramnagar, Nainital, of the learned Trial Court by the judgment dated 22.08.2014, while recording the finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent had decreed the Suit for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,64,676/- payable as service charges by defendant/appellant under the work settlement contract dated 26.12.2007.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the defendant (appellant herein) had preferred a First Appeal on 22.08.2014, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2014 'Nagar Palika vs. S.S. Negi'. The learned Appellate Court too while considering the propriety of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.08.2014 and with regards to the fact, which was sought to be pressed by way of an argument by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court too, in its finding recorded in paragraph 15 of the judgment while considering the statement of DW1, i.e. defendant no. 3, who has categorically recorded a finding of fact that all the documents pertaining to the map 26ga/39 and other documents, which was produced by the plaintiff/respondent through his letter dated 7.07.2012, which were found on record at S.No. 486 dated 9.06.2012 and with regards to the assessment made, which was on records being paper No. 33, coupled with the fact that the said verification made of the bills, which were presented by the plaintiffs, were also verified by the Contractor himself by putting his signature and seal. The Appellate Court after considering the impact of the papers produced by way of evidence by plaintiffs/respondents has recorded a finding to the following effect:
"इस प्रकार डी0डब्लू0-1 के बयान से यह सिद्ध होता है कि वादी द्वारा स्वहस्ताक्षरित करके अपने बिलों के समर्थन में प्रतिवादी संख्या 3 विभाग द्वारा दस्तावेज मांगे जाने पर उसके द्वारा वर्णित कार्यों से सम्बन्धित अभिलेख सुपरविजन रिपोर्ट, ले-आउट एवं आगणन कराया गया। उक्त विभाग के अवर अभियंता ईश्वरी सिंह रौतेला द्वारा भी वादी के बिलों के साथ संलग्न दस्तावेजों को सत्यापित कर शिनाख्त किया है। इस प्रकार प्रतिवादी विभाग द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी मौखिक साक्ष्य से ही यह साबित है कि प्रतिवादी संख्या 3 की तरफ से प्रस्तुत किये गये तर्क निराधार है और वादी ने प्रतिवादी संख्या 3 द्वारा नोटिस दिये जाने के बावजूद बिलों के समर्थन में सुपरविजन रिपोर्ट, ले-आउट एवं आगणन प्रस्तुत नहीं किये। इस तरह से विद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा वाद बिन्दु संख्या 1 पर दिया गया निष्कर्ष उचित एवं वैध तरीके से पारित निर्णय पाया जाता है। जहां तक वाद बिन्दु संख्या-3 का सम्बन्ध है, क्योंकि पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट है कि अंकन 1,64,676/- रूपये का भुगतान प्रतिवादी संख्या 3 विभाग द्वारा वादी को बार बार कहने के बावजूद नहीं किया इसलिए वादी को वाद योजित करने का उचित वाद कारण प्राप्त था।"
Thus, the contention, which is being sought to be raised by the defendant/appellant in the present second appeal by way of formulating the substantial question of law too with regards to the effect of non-verification of the bills does not come into play for the reason that in view of a concurrent findings, which has been recorded by both the courts below with regards to the verification of bills, which has already been discussed above, has been specifically dealt with concurrently by both the courts below in view of the subsequent verified bills, which were submitted by the plaintiffs on 17.07.2007 in response to the letter of the defendant (appellant herein) itself.
Consequently, on considering the rival contentions, the learned Appellate Court too by the judgment dated 21.08.2015 had partly allowed the Appeal so far it relates to the remittance pertaining to the amount due to be paid, i.e. Rs. 1,64,676/-, however, the Suit was dismissed with regards to the aspect of rate of interest, which was made payable, which was directed to be paid to plaintiff/respondent and it was determined as to be at the rate of 6 percent simple interest per annum, which was made payable by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiffs/respondents.
The present second appeal was filed with delay condonation application and this Court after considering the propriety of the delay of 91 days has already condoned the delay by an order dated 21.08.2019 and today the second appeal is taken up for arguments at admission stage.
After a prolonged hearing and hearing of both the counsels at length, the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has harped upon the second substantial question of law contending thereof that it entails its determination in the present second appeal with regards to the manner in which the certificate of completion of work was given to the respondent on 25.12.2007, which has been issued by the Junior Engineer of the appellant-Nagar Palika, which is quoted hereunder:
"2. Whether the certificate of completion of work which was given to the respondent on 25.12.2007 could be issued by the Junior Engineer of appellant Nagar Palika Parishad, when the work order was itself issued on 25.12.2007 to the respondent ?"
This Court is of the view that looking to the tenure during which the work or service was provided by the plaintiff/respondent, and when there is no dispute was ever raised in the proceedings of Suit with regards to the availing of the services of the expertise, i.e. of the plaintiffs/respondents, as would be apparent from the resolution passed by the Nagar Palika in its meeting, which was presided over by the Chairman on 01.08.2007, that in itself goes to show that in principal the defendant/appellant has admitted the propriety and the nature of the work, which was discharged by the plaintiffs/respondents under the terms of settlement dated 26.12.2007 and they have also admitted the propriety of their liability in view of the settlement and the specified rates, which was arrived at while executing the work order executed on 23.12.2007. Thus, as far as the implication falling from substantial question of law, which has been framed as substantial question no. 2, this Court is of the view that in view of the finding already recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment and the finding recorded in paragraph 15 of the appellate judgment, the said substantial question of law do not arise for consideration in the present second appeal pertaining to the liability of payment of the bills submitted by the plaintiffs/respondents as it stood admitted by the defendant/appellant in their evidence, but despite of having accepted the propriety of the verified bills, which is an admitted case if the same was not processed though there was a recommendation made by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, in view of the aforesaid fact and coupled with the fact that the defendant/appellant had never made any effort to get an appropriate issue formulated either at the trial stage or even at the appellate stage, this Court is of the view that the issue pertaining to the impact, which is being sought to be pressed with regards to the effect of non-verification of the bills it stood diluted by the proceedings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the second appeal is concluded for concurrent finding of facts, which does not call for any interference, which requires for answering the substantial question of law as pressed by the appellant.
Consequently, the second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, there would be no order as to cost.