Tarlok Singh Chauhan JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The appellants are the defendants, who have suffered a decree at the hands of the trial Court and same stands affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby a preliminary decree directing the parties to settle the accounts has been passed in favour of the plaintiff.
The parties shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.
2. The brief facts giving rise to present appeal are that the defendants awarded to the plaintiff the construction work of Thana Kot-Naina Devi OFC route, Section Nos. I & II vide letter No. W-8032/02 dated 28.5.2003 and W-8032/04 dated 31.5.2003. The plaintiff started the execution of work by employing the men and machinery and most of the work was executed. But vide letter No. 8032/6 dated 17.6.2003, defendant No. 2 informed that the aforesaid work order stands cancelled and the plaintiff was requested to submit the left over store to the department. The plaintiff contacted the defendants about the aforesaid order, but it was disclosed that the work may be ordered to be resumed shortly and payment of whole of the work shall be made only after the completion of work. When the work had not been ordered to be resumed, then plaintiff submitted the left over store as per requirement of defendants on 20.9.2003 and Bill No. 203 of Rs. 5,28,176/- had been submitted on 13.6.2006 qua the work which had already been executed by the plaintiff as per the work order issued by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendants number of times to release the aforesaid payment, but they had refused on one pretext or the other and in such circumstances besides to the liability of BSNL to make the payment of aforesaid outstanding amount with interest from the date of submission of bill alongwith compensation, the concerned officials of BSNL had rendered themselves liable to make the payment in personal capacity since they delayed the payment of aforesaid amount on one pretext or the other without any legal and valid reason. The plaintiff was entitled for the settlement of the accounts for the aforesaid amount with interest equivalent to commercial transaction. Hence the suit.
3. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, valuation, estoppel, locus-standi, limitation and special costs U/s 35-A CPC were raised. On merits, it was admitted to the extent that work order was issued to the plaintiff of Thana Kot-Naina Devi OFC route, Section Nos. I & II vide letter No. W-8032/02 dated 28.5.2003 and W-8032/04 dated 31.5.2003 and the store i.e. PLB PIPE 4 Km. valued Rs. 76,000/- and G.I. PIPE (65 mm) 50 in numbers valued Rs. 43,740/- was issued to the plaintiff on 10.6.2003 vide issue slip No. 026 of SDO(T), BIlaspur. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had received the above material from SDO(T), Bilaspur on 10.6.2003 and the plaintiff had kept this material in his store and the work was stopped by the defendants vide letter No. 8032/6 dated 17.6.2003 and the same was cancelled vide letter No. 8032/09 dated 27.6.2003. The plaintiff had not deposited the store to the defendants, hence defendant No. 2 requested the plaintiff to deposit the store on 28.8.2003 vide letter No. W-8032/11, but he did not deposit the store with defendant No. 2 and a reminder was issued to the plaintiff vide letter No. W-8032/13 dated 9.9.2003. The plaintiff had deposited the store to SDO (T), Bilaspur on 20.9.2003. It was further averred that department officer visited the site on 17.6.2003 and found that no construction was done on the spot but inspite of stopping the work and later on cancelled the work by the department. The plaintiff had shortened the aforesaid store and caused loss to the department. No machinery or labour was employed before 17.6.........