AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Issue notice.
As respondents are represented by learned counsel, no need to issue fresh notice.
Heard on stay application.
The suit has been decreed by the trial court under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on the admission of the appellant department.
Submissions have been made by learned counsel for the appellants that the work was executed by the plaintiff under the deposit works, wherein the appellant department executed work on behalf of municipalities and other public bodies and as the amount claimed by the plaintiff though was due to him, for lack of receipt of the requisite amount from the respondent No. 3 - Jodhpur Development Authority, the same could not be paid to the plaintiff.
Submissions have been made that the only admission of the appellant in the written statement subject to the fact that the amount when received from JDA, the same would be paid to the plaintiff and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and therefore, the execution of the impugned decree deserves to be stayed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the principal amount under the decree already stands recovered by way of execution whereby the amount deposited by the appellants, has been paid.
It is further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and JDA as the work was got executed by the appellants and, therefore, merely because on account of inter se dispute between the appellant and JDA, the funds were not made available by JDA to the appellants, the plaintiff could not be made to suffer and as the demand regarding the amount be outstanding is quite categorical, merely because a suffix was added as indicated in the written statement that payment would be made on receiving the same from JDA, the same cannot take it out of the purview of provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and, therefore, no case for stay of the present money decree is made out by the appellants.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties on the stay application.
It is not in dispute that the work was got executed by the appellants, may be under the deposit work as per the Public Works Financial and Account Rules, however, no provision has been cited to indicate that the contractor would be entitled for payment of the amount only on receipt from the agency, for which, the work was got executed and that on non-receipt of the money, the right of the plaintiff to get the money for the work executed shall stay forfeited.
For inter se dispute between the appellants and JDA apparently the admitted claim of the plaintiff could not have been disputed and, therefore, as apparently the order passed by the trial court could not be said against provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, no case for grant of interim order is made out.
The stay application is, therefore, dismissed.