Full Judgment
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::
JUDGMENT
:: S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad S/o Megh Raj Goyal .. Date of Judgment ::: Tuesday, 17th November, 2015. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the appellant-defendant (Railways). None present on behalf of the respondent despite service. <<>> BY THE COURT: (Oral) 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants- defendants in a suit for recovery of money in the sum of Rs.4477.66 against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No.79/1994 “Dwarka Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors.”
. by which, the Court below, while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, directed the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 2/7 present appellants to pay Rs.4477.66 only to the plaintiff, a contractor. The Trial Court of the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.2, Jodhpur had dismissed the civil original suit [No.594/1987 (151/1980)]. filed by the plaintiff-Dwarka Prasad for recovery of Rs.4477.66, on 31.08.1991.
2. The appellants-defendants have filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, by the learned First Appellate Court whereby, the present appellants-Department of Railways were directed to pay a sum of Rs.4477.66 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 03.03.1980, till the date of payment to the plaintiff, a contractor, who executed certain repair works for the appellants-defendants-Railways.
3. Though the learned Trial Court had dismissed the civil original suit [No.594/1987 (151/1980)]. filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4477.66 on 31.08.1991 but the learned First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal (No.79/1994) on 28.07.1994 with the following observations:-
“9. तदनस र र श 4425.86 रपय क ब र म व द न व च रण नय य लय न ज ननषकर ददय ह" ह अनचचत, मनम न स कय व च& क व पर'त ह( । S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 3/7 ऐस ह न स इस समबन& म उनक इस ननषकर क अब अप सत ककय ज त ह" । 10. जह 0 तक स1मन2 क 51.80 रपय बक य ह न क पश ह" द' द रक पस द प1.डब7य.8 1 क9 स कय यह रह' ह" कक उसस स1मन2 क 52/- रपय जय द क 2 शलय थ ज भ1 बक य ह" । इस पर पनतपर'कण यह हआ ह" कक पनत द न उसस स1मन2 क9 क9मत जय द क 2 ल' थ1 और पस दन क पत भ1 ददय गय थ इस1 सBबB& म 52/- रपय बक य ह" । इस स1मन2 क9 बक य रश क समबन& म द नC पनत द'गण न स कय म अनशभजत पक2 क9 ह" । सपष ह" इस स कय क दखत हए द' क9 पनत द'गण म स1मन2 क 51.80 रपय क9 र श बक य ननकलन स बबत ह त ह" । 11. तदनस र द' क9 पनत दगण म कल र श 4477.66 रपय "& रप स बक य ह" । जहI तक बय ज क सBबB& ह" इस सBबB& म द' द रक पस द न क ई स कय नह'B द' ह" । इसक सBबB& म क ई ब ज र & र स बबत नह'B क9 गय1 ह" । पकक रC म बय ज दन क क ई इकर र नह'B थ , ऐस म एक पनत त पनतम ह बय ज नह'B ददल य ज सकत परनत यह म मल अक रण द' क9 उसक9 बक य रश क उपय ग करन स Bचचत करन क रह ह" जजस क रण & र 34 स1प1स क अ&1न 6 पनत त क9 दर स त र'ख द 3.3.80 स बय ज ददल य ज न नय य चचत ह" । 12. पररण मत: द' क9 यह अप1ल पनत द'गण क व रद स 1क र क9 ज त ह" । अ&1नसथ नय य लय क S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 4/7 ननणय डडक9 31.8.91 क अप सत ककय ज त ह" । अब द' क पक म पनत द'गण क व रद ननमन पक र स डडक9 प ररत क9 ज त1 ह" : अ. द' पनत द'गण स र श 4477.66 रपय प प करन क अच&क र' ह" । ब. द' पनत द'गण स उपर क र श पर त र'ख 3.3.80 स 6 पनत त वरक क9 दर स भगत न ह न तक बय ज प प करन क हकद र ह" । स. द' पनत द'गण स अ&1नसथ नय य लय अप1ल नय य लय क द वयय भ1 प प करन क हकद र ह" । sd/- (घ1स ल ल चT&र') अपर जजल नय य &1 कम सBखय द , ज &पर" 4. While admitting the present second appeal, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court had framed the following the substantial question of law on 06.03.1995 which reads as under:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the certificate issued by the plaintiff that no dues are there against the respondents will not amount to admission and the plaintiff will not be estopped from challenging the same ?.”.
5. The learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, appearing for the appellants-defendants submitted that since in the present case, the plaintiff, a contractor, had given the “No Dues S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 5/7 Certificate”. at the time of accepting the final payment for the work in question done by him, therefore, he was not entitled to claim any additional sum and, therefore, the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs.4477.66 had rightly been dismissed by the learned Trial Court, while applying the principles of “estoppel”. against the plaintiff, having given the “No Dues Certificate”. given to the defendants-Railways to the effect that there are no dues. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the appellants-Railways.
6. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff despite service of notice probably looking to the very small stakes involved in the present matter.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the record of the case, including the judgments and decree of both the learned Courts below, this Court is satisfied that there is no force in the present second appeal filed by the defendants-Railways, as the defendants- Railways failed to discharge its burden before the learned First Appellate Court showing the payment of Rs.4477.66 to the plaintiff-contractor for the work done by him, which was due to be paid as per Item No.38 at the rate of 25% above the approved rates if the contractor completed within time. The S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 6/7 work in question was for making of door frames with the 'Saal' wood and, admittedly, the contractor had completed the aforesaid work within the stipulated time and for this work, the defendants-Railways had supplied cement of Rs.51.80 and the cost of the cement was also recovered by the defendants- Railways. This Court is of the opinion that mere filing of “No Dues Certificate”. at the time of accepting final payment for the work in question by the plaintiff-contractor, the same cannot be said to be operate as an estoppel against the plaintiff from claiming any lawful dues from the Railways against the work done.
8. It is an admitted position that in the present case, the plaintiff-contractor had completed the aforesaid work of making door frames within the stipulated time and cost of cement at Rs.51.80 had also been recovered from the defendants, therefore, he is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.4477.66. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal of the appellants-defendants-Railways deserves to be dismissed and the substantial question of law is liable to be answered against the appellants-defendants and in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.275/1994. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dwarka Prashad .. Judgment, Tuesday, dated 17.11.2015. 7/7 9. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants-Union of India & Ors (Railways) stands dismissed. The substantial question of law, as quoted above, is answered against the appellants-defendants and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
/Mohan/ / H-6 /