The High Court · 2025

agreements were concluded by and between the appe I nt-plaintiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 on behalf of the lovernment to execute the works. The appellant-plaintiff has comnt nced the work A ,/ ,/r, BRMR,J AS.No.346_2O2O w;th an intention to complete the same within the agreements period and has done the same without compromising in the quality and quantity. The in-charge Fierd Engineer was satisfied and recorded the measurements as per a ctua ls, all the material supplied and works and measured by the competent executed have been checked Engineers. The Government in their Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V & E)/AL/2O70-22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697/Ser.ylr (V &E)/2O1O_26, dated 16.06.2011, after the lapse of about 3 years from the date of execution, instructions have been imparted to inspect the works. The fact of the matter is that the works have been executed and recorded in different Measurement Books (herein after called as MBs) during 2008-09 itserf. The in-charge Fierd officers concerned have recorded the measurements.

4.3. The Adm in istrator_cu m_Ch ief Engineer, SRSp Stage_I, Hydbrabad has formurated inspection teams for civir and Mechanical works invorving the team of Engineers working under other than the Administrator-cum-ChieF Engineer, SRSP, Stage_I, Hyderabad. The civil works are 12 in number, they have been executed to the best satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Works were measured and checked by the competent authority and also by Superintending Engineers of other circle. The quality control authorities have also inspected the works and no remarks were raised, they were satisfied with the execution of works. The Government in their MemTNo. 3117 iJRMR,J AS.No.:]46 2020 3697/Ser.VIi (V&E)A1l2010-26, dated 16.06.2011 i: sued guidelines regarding making payment to WUAS. As per Para I o.2 of the said Government lYemo, two foremost conditions have t l be satisf red for making payments i.e., a) Existence of a bonafide ag r ement (b) work executed as per the agreement conditions. 100o/o verl' cation has been done by the Team of Engineers and the conditions , /ere satisfled in respect of all the civil works executed by the appellar r-plaintiff. The conditions stipulated at Para Nos.10 and 11 of the G(,' ernment Memo, in fact applies where the recorded measurements w€r : often fou nd to be incredulous, but not to credulous measurements, Superintendent Engineer and Quality control authorities were s. i sfied with the measurements recorded in the M-books. Restrictic I 50o/o and 7Oo/o is void ab initio and violative ( of payment to 'constitutional provisions. The amounts recovered from the work, bill ; of other works are illustrated in the statements annexed to the o la int and the amounts worked out for 12 civil works is Rs.6,24,549,' which needs to be refunded to the a ppellant- pla intiff as the recovery ij illegal.

4.4. The amounts recovered by the respondents-def: appellant-plaintiff is manifestly illegal and patent \ violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Ir). responden ts-defenda nts are liable to refund the re< rdants from the arbitrary and ia. hence the rvered amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Appella nt- pla intiFi f as got issued a legal notice to the respondents-defenda nts on 07.07 2015 but they 4l17 BRMR,J AS.No.346-2o20 failed to give reply. As per the provisions contained in the special conditions of contract, the claims above Rs.50,000/- in value shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by Arbitration and the value of the suit is above Rs'3'00'000/-' Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Defendant Nos'2 and 3 are located at L'M'D' Colony, Thimmapur (M). Karimnagar District which is within the terrltorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court i'e'' Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for'

5. Respondent No.4-defendant No 4 has filed his written statement which is adopted by respondent Nos'1 to 3-defendant Nos'1 to 3' Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission initiated action on the basis of Writ Petition No.15126 of 2009 which in turn lead to Departmental Enquiry. Inspection team inspected their work on the basis of V & E in th.eir Appraisal Note No.13, dated 05'02'2010' Appellant- plaintiff was entrustedwith12worksandl0worksareonlyexecutedbythe Agency. The recoveries are made as per 1000/o verification report submitted by the team and the same is communicated to the Government for payment. Measurements were randomly made by all the Engineering staff to the satisfaction on the existence of bonafide agreement and executed as per the agreement conditions with the applied team deduction in the Measurement Books which were recommended for payment by the Government' The recoveries were made based on the Government Memos' G Vasanth Reddy filed /r/ r' 5/t] I]RMR,.] cS.:,Io.3.+(,2O20 WP.No.15126 of 2009, seeking enquiry on the irre q Jlarities in the works executed under SRSP. The Vigilance Enquiry r their appraisal Report No.13, dated 05.02.2010, while submitting th,: 'ePort, advised the department to conduct detailed enquiry in all le maintenance works executed in between 2007-08, 2008-09, . 109-10. The appellant-plaintiff and other contractors who ( <ecuted SRSP maintenance works for the years 2007-O8,2008-09 a 'd 2009-10 are well aware of the enquiries and proposed recoveri(l by the 100o/o verification team which were effected for the abo z works before payment and the same is accepted by the app: ant-plaintiFf in M-Book, hence, the plaintiff has no moral right F( I insisting prior Notice. The recoveries are made as per the 100o/o \/ rification Team and Report, accepted and communicated by the ( overnment for payment and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6 The following issues are framed by the learned -,al Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suir rmount? 2. To what relieP Appellant-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got n,r rked Exs.A1 to One G.Srinivas is examined as DW.1 on beh.l of respondent No.4-defendant No.4 and got marked Exs.B1 and 82

8. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evid€ rce adduced by the parties and after going through the documert, thereon, has dismissed the suit of the a ppellant- pla intiff 6ltt BRMR,J AS.No.346 2020

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the case in a proper prospective, failed to look into the departmental rules and was influenced by the Government Department, wrongly dismissed the suit. Appellant has filed details of the works done under the agreement and Ex.82 Measurement No.972/8, which shows the detairs of measurements of works executed by the appella nt-pla intiff. Respondents_defenda nts admitted in the written statement at para No.3 about the contents of the Annexure annexed to the plaint and at para No.5 they admitted that there is no dispute with regard to the quality and quantity and they illegally recovered Rs.6,24,54g/- from the appellant-plaintiff without any consent and not even attested the corrections made by the respondents-defendants as required under para. 294 of pWD, Accounts code and Article 175 (6) of Financial code.

9.2. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of DW.1 and ought to have looked into Ex.B1. Appellant counsel further submitted that measurements were recorded on 2g.06.2009 whereas the recovery is effected by BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2013 as against the defect liability period of one year as per clause 28 of TDSS r/w GOMS No.94 I & CAD dated 01.07.2003 and the alleged recovery is far late after the compretion of defect riabirity period which is void ab initio but the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit. The Trial Court ought to have seen that when G.Vasanth Reddy has filed Wp.Noy'5126 /./ i i 7lL7 RRMR,J AS.N-o.3-i6 2020 of 2009 challenging the specific action of awa- ing works on nomination basis to ineligible persons but no where i:,s mentioned in the Writ Petition regarding quality and quantity of wo - s executed and the Writ Petition came to be dismissed. The Triz i Court has not appraised the weight of evidence produced by the it pellant-plaintiff wrth that of Ex.B2-Measurement Book Record. Th<r : is no iota of evidence in the Vigilance Enquiry Report No.13 datec 05.10.2010 as no remarks are made against works executed bv the appellant- plaintiff, the burden of proof lies on the respondent -defendants to produce the enquiry report but the appellant-plaintiff ij not responsible for the unknown enquiry report. The correction; made by the respo n dents -defe nda nts are not been attested by rny Officer as required under Para 294 of the PWD, Accounts code lnd Article 175 (6) of the Financial code. The Trial Court erred in aying that the tenure of Water Users Association President is compl€t:d in 2010 and the present suit is filed in the year 2016. The tota lmount as per Measurement Book Record is paid as per Ex.82, the arr tunt recovered is at Page No.33 ytde BTR No.211, dated 10.05.2O13. )rder Ii Rule 2 (i) of CPC says "every suit shall include the whole : aim which the plaintiFf is entitled to make in respect of cause of action and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 10 Leaqed counsel for the respondents-defenda n t submits that the Association has entered into agreement with the (; vernment^and I BRMR,.' AS.No 346 2O2O in the year 2013, Government has recovered Rs.5,24,549/- basing on 100%o verification report submitted by the team, no interference is called for. prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed his written arguments in the form of Abstract and also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivnarayan (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Maniklal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Othersl. L2. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment passed in OS.No.153 of 2016 by Principle Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. dated 09.07.2019 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

14. The learned Trlal Court in its judgment at Para No.23 observed that the appellant-pla intiff failed to challenge the enquiry report and ought to have sought the relief of declaration which is interlinked with the relief of recovery of money, thereby the suit is not maintainable. It is no body's case and the Trial Court has travelled peYond the pleadings. the same is not sustainable. 'r' , i 'lzozo y&cezs 9lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.346 2020

15. It is not the case of the respondents-d efe r lants that the plaintiff has no /ocus standi lo file the suit but the Trii I Court without any pleadings arrived and discussed in Para No.24 of lt judgment that the tenure of the appellant-plaintiff was completed i^ the year 2010 and the present suit is filed in the year 2OL6, at the t 'ne of filing the suit, he was not a President and that PW.1 (appellan - rerein - plaintiff) did not obtain any authorization letter from the \ embers of the Association and directly filed the suit and the suit is rr, t maintainable. The said finding is against the pleadings of the parties rence the same is not susta ina b Ie.

16. It is also not the case of the respondents-def l tdants that the suit is bad for joinder of cause of action. The observe.ion of the Trial Court at Para No.25 of its judgment that suit for 10 (l ferent works is not maintainable and that the plaintiff failed to prov: the reasons of joinder of cause of action, when looked into the rt use of actions individually, this Court is not having jurisdiction to en ertain the case and that the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder ol )ause of action. The Trial Court has travelled beyond the pleadir 7s, hence the observation in Para No.25 of the judgment is not sr- s :ainable, hence Shivnarayan casel is not dealt with. 77 . As the suit is filed by the appella nt-pla intiff, t f e burden is on,, him to prove the same to recover the suit amount. I r0lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.346-2020

18. Ex.A2 is the legal notice, dated 07.O7.20t5 got issued by the appellant-plaintiff to respondent Nos.1 to 4-defendant Nos.1 to 4 wherein it is stated that Water Users Association Chairman, Veldi have executed certain civil works in Division No.4 of GVC-IV, LMD Colony, Karimnagar under the admlnistrative control of the Administrator-cum- Chief Engineer, SRSP Stage-I, Hyderabad during the year 2008-09. wherein all the works have been checked by the competent authority and also payments were made as per the recorded measurements. The Government has issued Memos vtde Exs.A4 and A5 after the lapse of 4 years and the civil works are 10 in number which have been executed to the satisfaction of the Departmental Authorities for Rs.5,97,a451- which needs to be refunded to the plaintitf as the recovery is illegal.

19. It is mentioned in the plaint that the a ppella nt-pla intiff and respondent No.4-defendant No.4 entered into contract for execution of 10 civil works shown in the Annexure. On perusal of the Annexure to the plaint which statement shows the list of works from 2008-09. 2009-10. Captioned as recovery statement of Sri E.Kanaka Reddy, Water Users Association (WUA President Wealthy) wherein he has shown 12 works and the amount recovered shown therein is Rs.6,24,549/- which is the suit amount, but Ex.A2 legal notice shows with regard to 10 civil works and the amount recovered is Rs5,97,845/-. It is the plaintiff who has to explain how he is entitled tutT BRMR,J AS.No.346 2O2O to recover Rs.6,24,549/-. Ex.B1 is the agr No.291lEElDivn.No.4/GVC.4/DB/2008-09 dated 1l ,ement No.AB

01.2009. The nature of work is Estimate for filling Pot Holes, Rain : rllies & forming Embankment on L/S Bank for 1R of 3LA of DBM-6 cf Ka katiya Ca nal under WUA Veldhi-I. The estimated amount with san l ion reference is Rs.3,17,000/-. Value of work to be done as per the .( i-eement rate is Rs.3,02,541/-. Contract is entered between Goverrr rent of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and Command Area Department;t d the name of the a gency/co ntra ctor is Edla Kanaka Reddy S/o.R. 11 Reddy. R/o. Veldhi, President Water User Association, Veldhi-I rf Manakondur Mandal. A schedule is annexed to Ex.B1 which says Es imate for filling Pot Holes, Rain Gullies & forming Embankment. The I) obable quantity is 6912.500 Sq.meters and 2328.355 cum. The totil a mount shown is Rs.3,02,541/-.

20. As per Ex.A1, reference to agreement numb3 and date are mentioned in Column No.4; amount is shown in Colunr,No.5; 14.B.No. is shown in Column No.6; Number of Bills paid is sl lwn in Column No.7; Amount paid as per M.B. is shown in Column !o.8; Recovery amount is shown in Column No.20. Nine (9) Agreer ents are dated

18.01.2009 for different kinds of works with differ :nt agreement numbers. Three (3) agreements are dated 28.02.20a ) with different agreement numbers which are shown in column Io.3 of Ex.A1. Column No.2 is name of work. It is worth mentic I lng that Ex.B1 \ \ 12117 t]RMR.J AS.No-346 2020 agreement is in respect of Item No.5 of Ex.A1. The total recovered amount as per Ex.A1 is Rs.6,24,549/-. 2t. Ex.A4 is the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigatlon and C.A.D. dated 28.04.2017 in Memo No.3697lSer.VII (V&E)A1I20 t0-2O22) where in Para No'2 it is stated that after examination of the report of ACE, SRSP Stage-I and the representations of WUAs, it has been decided to take up 100yo verification of the works of SRSP Stage-I executed by the WUAS to assess the quality and quantity of the works for the purpose of preparing proposals for making payments to the farmer's organizations.

22. Ex.A5 is the Memo No.3697/Ser.VII (V&E)A1/2010-26 dated

16.06.2011 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation and C:A.D. guide lines are issued for processing the payments in respect of O&M works taken up during the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 in SRSP Stage-I. Guideline Nos.1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and 13 are as under:

1. The cardinal requirement for processing the payments in respect of any work, in relaxation of G.O.MS.No.46 of I&CAD (General.IV) Department dated 24.O2.2007, shall be: A) Existence of a bonafide agreement B) Work executed as per the agreement conditions.

2. No payment shall be processed if the work in question does not satisfy the above conditions. Thus, works wherein agreements were concluded by the parties not competent to io so, and works where the dates of agreements yefe 73111 L]IIMR,J AS.No.346 2020 anterior to the dates of purchase of the stamp F rper, shall not be processed. 3. Works where fraudulent practices were notic( J, such as recording of physically non-existent works duplicate recording of the same work, works where l4-Bool: -ecordings are incom p lete/d isjointed/o r were tampered with rr altered, shall be summarily rejected. 10. In case ofjungle clearance too, processing cl payments needs to be restricted to realistic quantities since the recorded quantities were often found to be increcr tous. The teams thererore shall verify the site. and shall al c w only up to a maximum of 50o/o of the recorded quantiti ,s for the purpose of processing of payments. 11. In respect of the works related to laying of nspection paths/gravel fitling etc., the site shall be verified i r the first instance and processing of payments shall be res i cted to a maximum of 7Oo/o of the quantities recorded ir the .'M,, Books.

13. Each WUA/Agency shall be taken as an indi! for processing payments. Fraudulent works, if any listed WUA/Agency wise. payments processe( inspection teams in case of each WUA/Agency, adjusted against the payments already made, amounts recoverable on account of fraud. The fin; I due shall accordingly be arrived at,,. dual unit shall be by the shall be and the oayment

23. Ex.46 is the information obtained by the ap p ella nt-pla intiff under Right to Information Act, dated 08.09.2016. Enck sure to Ex.46 is with regard to MB No.972lB captioned as First and Fi- rl Bill and the t4lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.346-2020 total value of the work done is Rs.2,12,179/- , after standard deduction a cheque for Rs.1,51,831/- is issued to the a ppella nt-pla intiff on 16.08.2013; MB No.966/B shows that total value of the work done is Rs.2,15,938/- and an amount of Rs.61,400/- ts deducted towards standard deductions, and an amount of Rs.1,54,508/- by way of cheque dated 16.08.2013; MB No.777lB is also an another bill. the total value of the work done is Rs.1,10,481/-. standard deductions are F(s.26,gA4/ -, Net amount paid is Rs'83,497l-. Another bill is in respect of MB No.97518, the total value of the work done is Rs.43,325l- and the deduction is Rs.5,748l- and the amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.37,57-//- vlde dated 16.08.2013; MB No.803/8, total value of the work is Rs.2,06,809/- and the deductions are Rs.47,899/- and payment made is Rs.1,58,910/- by way of cheque dated 18.07.2009, MB No.8O2l8, total value of the work is Rs.z,O4,423l- and the ddductions are Rs.47,287l- and amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.1,57,136/- vide dated 18.07.2009; MB No.77618, total value ofthe work is Rs.71,109/- and the deductions are Rs.6,298/- and amount paid by way of cheque is Rs.64,811/- dated 18'07.2009; Another enclosure to Ex.A6 states that "as per the team leader Enquiry Report submitted by the team leader and accepted by the Government vlde Memo No.3697/sec-VII (V&E) A112010-40 dated 20.03.2013 amount as per verification is Rs.40,836/-, final bill paid as per MB is Rs.71,109/- recovery is to be made is Rs-3O,2731-, There are lots of corrections to the enclosures of Ex.A6. y'- ',/ rsl17 L]RMR,J ,\S.No.316 2020

24. Appella nt- pla intiff has admitted in his cross-t: there are separate agreements for each work as per i amination th at ,A1, he fu rther stated that he has filed the present suit for Rs.6,00,01) r/- and odd and he has not specifically mentioned in the pleadingr; with regard to nature of each work and he cannot say how he h: ; arrived to an amount of Rs.6,24,549/- and the works carried are as ,er column No.2 in Ex.A1.

25. The evidence of respondent No.4 as DW.1 i', 12 works are entrusted to the appellant-plaintiff that a ltogether rnd they have deducted the amount as per the enquiry report and t ,e works are by way of separate agreements, recorded separately n MB and the amounts were paid as per the Measurement Book I ecords. In his cross-exa mination he stated that as per Article 175 (t;' of the Financia I code, the check measurement were done with an int: rtion to find out the irregularities and defects in the work, the Qualitl' :ontrol Unit will randomly check up the total work and after m: iing the entire verification, the record will be handed over to the [) furnishing the record the watch and ward will l Department only and two years liable period is ll ,partment, after : done by the ere as per the agreement, as per GOMS No.94 for original works, t I e defect liability period is of two years and in case of maintenance w: 'ks the period is one year and in the present case, the work was I )ne in the year 2008-09 and they have deducted the amount t) sing on GOMS \ BRMR,J AS.No.346-2020 No.3697 dated 16.06.2011, the Government has issi.red Memos and basing on the Memos they have deducted the amount' in the year 2009, the work satisfactory report was issued to the appellant-plaintifF by the Department and the contractor issued release and discharge certificate. After completion of the work and till the recovery of the amount the water circulation work was in proper manner and they have admitted in their written statement about the recovery of amount in Para No.3 without prejudice to the other submissions and the Annexure is not denied.

26. As admitted by the a ppella nt-pla intiff that each work is followed by separate agreements which is fortified with Ex.A1 wherein the agreement numbers were mentioned in column No.4. Appellant- plaintiff has not filed the copies of the agreement for the works done by him as per column No.2 of Ex.A1. Except Ex.81, appellant has failed to plead and prove the works carried out by them as per Column No.2 of Ex.A1. Material particulars are missing in the pleadings and the Government has deducted the amounts shown in Ex.A1 i'e., Rs.6,24,549/-. In Ex.A6, different MB numbers are mentioned for the works carried out by the appellant-plaintlff and it is the plaintiff who has to plead and prove when the works were completed. Plaint is vague and silent with regard to the works done by the appellant- plaintiff as per Ex.Al. In Ex.Al from column No.g to 20, the recovery amounts were mentioned therein under different heads." ITis worth -.2 77177 BRMR,J {S.No 3.16 2020 mentioning that it is the case of the appelant-prai. iff that he has done only 10 works as per Ex.A2. and the same is a r I mentioned in Para No.3 of the plaint and shown 12 works in para No. r.

27. Appellant-plaintiff has to prove his case ar t he failed to establish the same. The Trial Court has properly i ppreciated the evidence of the parties and rightly dismissed the suit. fhis Court is of the view that the judgment does not require interferen e ot this Court and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

28. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed without costs. Miscellaneous application/s if any, stands closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-F'. iOWRI SHANKAR DI: )UTY REGISTRAR ,7 IiECTION OFFICER One Fair Copv to the HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHT\'l RAO ' iFor His LordshiP's kind Perusal) To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.With recordsl 2. One CC to Sri Ponnamm Mallaiah Goud, Advocate [OPt 3] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS,High Court for the St rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. 1{ LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, ' t stice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6.TheSecretary,TelanganaAdvocatesAssociationLibra''HighCourtforthe State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad'

7. Two CD Copies Kam/psl \ HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 t JUDGMENT AS.No.346 of 2020 oa) Y * i iHE SrA Ii Ii.B 202[ () 'e -z c)x * DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT 0 ),1" THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 346 OF 2O2O Between Edla Kanaka Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Age. 65 years, Occ. Ex-Chairman, Water Users Association, Veldi, R/o. H.No.3-47111, Veldi, PO. Mlanakondur (M) of Karimnagar Diskict. AND ...Ap pe llanUP lain tiff in O.S.No.15312016

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, L.M. D. Colony, Karimnagar

3. The Superintending Engineer, GVC-IV, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District. 4. The Executive Engineer, Division No.4 of GVC-lV, Sulthanabad of District. Karimnagar District. ...Respondents/Defendants in O.S.No.1 53/201 6 Appeal under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09-07-2019 in O.S.No.153 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri Ponnamm Mallatah Goud, Advocate for the Appellant and GP FOR APPEALS for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. -:!.1 SD/- ,.GOWRI SHANKAR : :PUTY REGISTRAR ( SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies Kam,PSL o HIGH COURT DATED:17 t0912025 DECREE AS.No.346 ot 2O20 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT o 0 2A ,'