The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Th.s Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPCJ assailing the judgmenl and decree in OS.No.115 of 2O15, dated 27.02.2020 passed by the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

2. A1>pellants are defendant Nos.l to 4 and respondent is the plaintiff :n OS.No.1 i5 of 2OL5. e=: 2lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.341 202O

3. 1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.17,2L,8341- with interest @ I8o/o per annum for the delayed payment on the principle amount of Rs.31,85,1701- for 32 to 39

months and for costs from the appellants-defendants jointly and

9.2. It is stated in the plaint that the respondent-plaintiff is a registered Contractor and executing works under various Departments including SRSP. Appellant No.4-defendant No.4 entered into contract for execution of (11) works. The (11) works are as under: ANNEXURE STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF WORKS CARRIED OUT BY M.SANTHOSH RAO, CONTRACTOR ON WHICH INTEREST PAYABLE FOR THE DELAY CAUSED ON THE PART OF DEPARTMENT Name of Contractor: Sri M.Santhosh Contractor R.fercne b T€chnical Sectim EstiMtf Rcf. to Agmt. No. & DaE GlG Paid M.B.No & Page No. De of R.cordiil {o. / DsE ,f Pa@nt lAo Period D.lay Eekin a Paye (FmE Col.No 8b9! RaE of lnErcst @t8P/" I[EEst A6ount Payablc lCol.No. 6xloxl I ReEa rks of o6et if my Dr.No. l7al EElDivn.lv/ cvc.rv/DB/ 2008-o9 Dt:OI.07.2O AB No. t64lEt)/ Divn.ll'lGvC.lV/ oB/2OO8-09 Dt:19.O8.2oG 605000 tx.r..o.179 / EE/Divn.lv/ cvc.tv/DB/ 2008-o9 D.:ol.07.20 09 AB No. l6s/E8/ Divn.lVlGVc.lv/ DB/2OO8-09 DLl9.Oa.2009 605000 Dr.No. IEO/ EE/Divn.lvl GVC.IV/DB/ 2008-o9 Dt:Ol.07.20 @ AB No. 156/ EElDivil .rvlcvc.rv/D8/ 2004-09 Drl9.Oa.200g 605000 133523 L2t7 lg Pa.2-7 to-05-201o 456 DE29.Ol .2013 32 {Mt

1.5p6 P.M, 64091 Nil 5336 1219la Pa.2-o ro-05-201o 854 Dr29.O t .2013 32 (M)

1.596 P.M. 256r Nil r33 t08 t2La I A PP.2-7 lo-05-201o 452 Dr29.Ol .20t3 32 (M)

1.9 P.M- 63892 l;il SI.N I 3 Nuc of Work EsaiEaE bt Earth @rk codruction of Cuid. wail alonA L/S mal bat* at U/S ofrcad brida. d I(E 173.975 on Kakatiya Main Estioarc for Edh mrk construction of Guidc waU along L/ S csal bank at D/S ofroad bridgc d (E 173.975 on Lakaliya Main EstiEatc for Edh wrk Cuidc *?.[ alor{ R/S cmal bank et D/s ofoad bridgc at l(6 t7J.975 on Kakatiya Main 3lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.341 2O20 Dr.No.18l/ EC/ Divn.lvl cvc.tv/DB/ 200a-o9 Dt:O 1.O7.20 o9 .^B No I67lEEl Divn lV,/cvc I\'/ DB/2008-09 Dt:19.08.2009 605000 1J5554 l2L6 I B Pe.2-7 t0,o5-20 lo 851 Dt 29 0t .20t 3 32 t[It l.5o/o P.\,1. 65066 Nil Dr.lio.22Ol E0lDivn.lvl cvc.N'/DB/ 2004-09 Dt:04.o7.20 09 .{It No.20{,/E t:/ Divn IVlGVC.tVlDE/ 2004-09 ot22.Oa .20U) 745000 Dr.No.22 I / EE/Divn.lV/ GVC.t\'/rrB,' 2004-o9 Dr:04.{17-20 09 ..u \o.205,i EDl Divn.l \'/CvC.il ./ DB I 2OOA-09 Dt:22.08.2009 74smo Dr.No.222l EElDirh.lV/' cvc.l\'/DB/ 2004-09 Oi:O4.O7 .2O 09 1B No.206/ EUr'Divn .tv,/cvc.tt /DB/ 2008.09 Dt22 OA.20O9 745000 Dr.No.223l EE/Divn.lV/ cvc.Iv/Da/ 2004-09 Dt:04.07.20 09 AA No.2o7lEEl Divn.lv/GVC.lV/ Dr)/20o8.0e Ot:22.08.2009 745000 Dt.No.22a/ EE/Divn.lv/ cvc.rvlDB/ 2009. lo Dt:O4.07.2o 09 AB No.2 I 2j EE,1 I)ivn .lv I Gvc.w lDB I 2m9-lo Dr:22.oa.2oO9 a97m Dt.No.229/ EElDivn.lvl GVC.TVlDB/ 2009-ro DrO4.07.20 09 AB No.2 l3/Et:/Dirn. rvlGvc.rvlDB/ 2009-10 Dr:22-Oa 2OG 897000 Dr.No.231/ EElDivn.lV/ cvc.rvlDB/ 2009-ro Dt:04.O?.2o 09 AB No.2 l5/EE/ Divn. N/CvC.t\',/DB/ 208- LO Dr:22.08.2009 897000 t224lB PA. I-3. 7- lo 720443 I 0-0 I,201 0 857 Dt:29.o1 .?0rl 36 tMl

1.504 P,M, 3a9039 Nil t221 PE.4-6, t2- l5 685406 I 0-0 -20 lo 458 Dt:2(-i 0l .20 l3 36 {Mt

1.3% P M, 370r ls Nil 65J94)4 t 197/8 P{.2-9 i0-or-201o as3 Dr29Oi .20r3 36 I ill) P. t{. 353I4I Nit 133523 t2o2l B Pa.2-7 I0-oI-20lo 856 Dr:I 0l .201J 36 tM) t.5'lo P.M, 721O2 Nil l9soi5 tr22lB k. t-7 23- lO-2009 860 Dl:29 0I .2013 39 tMl

1.506 P.M. I t4t07 Nit I 934 l9 I r24 lB PZ.l -7 23-rO-2009 a6t Dt:29.01 .2013 39 lMt t.3%, P.M. I 14320 193839 rt2tlB Pg. r-7 23- l0-2009 a59 Dt:29.O t .2013 39 tMt L5i16 P.M. I 13396 Nil / { 6 7 8 9 l0 Estioatc for Earth rcrk cxcavation md cons@ction of Cu.ide vall alons R/S cesl babk at U/S ofrcad bridgc at KE 173.975 on Kakatiya Main Cmal EstiBatc for Earth erk Cuide wall along -1,/S cmal bek at U/S ofrcad bridgc at KE 169-747 on Kalatiya Manr Cmal E*iEate for Edh work conshction of Guidc wall alonS R/S ceal bank ar U/S ofroad bridge at Kn 169.787 on Iiakatiya Mtu Canal Estimatc for Edh wrk excavation ed coEhction of Guidc wdl alonA L/ S ceal bank at D/S ofmad bridAc * KE 169.7E7 on Kakatiya Main Ceel Esti@tc for edh mrt qwetion ild conshction of Guidc wdl alona R/S calel bel( ai D/S ofroard brida. at KE 169.787 on l(alBtiya Main CEnal EsNn.rc for Edh mrt cxcavation ed cotr@ction of Cuidc Eall ar6ns L/s ce6l bart d U/S ofrcad lrridgc at KE 182.290 on Kakatiya Main C$51 Eerdr mrk eav*ion ed coMction of Guide wall alora R/s ceal bank al U/S ofrcad brid8c at KE 182.290 on Kakarjya Main C&tal Earth wrk qevation dd coG@ction of Guidc wall along R/S ceal balk d D/S ofrcad bridg. at Kh 182,29O on Ka.katiye Main \ I BRMR,J AS.No.341_2020

3.3. Respondent-plaintiff has commenced the work and completed the same within the agreement time without compromising in quality and quantity and the Incharge Field Engineers was duly satisfied and recorded the measurements as per actuals. The works done by the respondent-plaintiff have been checked by the competent Engineers and there is a delay in making payments for 26 to 35 months, the reasons for delay in payment is best known to the appellants-defendant Nos.l to 4. The Government in their Memo Nos.3697lSer.VII (V&E)/A1 l2OlO- 22, dated 28.04.2011 and 3697 lSer.VII (V&E)/2O|O-26, dated

16.06.20 11 i.e., after a lapse of about three years from the date of execution, issued instructions to inspect the works.

3.4. In fact, the works have been executed and recorded in different Measurement Books during the year 2OO9 itself. The reasons for the delay are not informed to the respondent-plaintiff by the appellants-defendant Nos.l to 4 at any point of time, though there is delay in arranging payment from October, 2OO9 to January, 2013. The Government has responded on the anonymous complaints and ordered for inspection by team of Engineers other than the Engineers working under the control of \ Adgninistrator-cum-Chief Engineer. The complaints were not only with regard to the quality of the said works but also regarding the conduct of the Engineers, needless to say that as per .the ,/ sltT BRMR,J AS.No.34r-2020 provisions of Para 75 of A.P. PWD Code, that no cognizance need be taken on anonymous complaints. There are no comments of bad quality or quantity in the works executed by the respondent- plaintiff.'lhe Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, Hyderabad has agaill issued instructions to the Superintending Engineer GVC-IV, L.M.D. Colony to inspect the works before making payment. The respondent-plaintiff has suffered financially without any fault on his side since the amount was borrowed from the local Financiers at a higher rate of interest.

3.5. As per clause 68 PS to APDSS, payment will be made to the Contractor under the certificate to be issued at reasonable frequent interwals by the Executive Engineer or by the Sub-Divisional Officer within (1,1) days of the date of each certificate. In the instant case, work conrpletion certificates were issued by the Executive Engineer in August 2OO9. As per Para 22 of G.O.Ms.No.94, I & CAD, dated OL.O7.2OO3, the payment of work bills shall be paid within one month. Eventually after (3) years the payment of work bills have not beerr released to the respondent-plaintiff. The appellants- defendarrts have not even chosen to furnish the reasons for the delay and that they are liable to pay damages/interest @ lSoh for Rs. 17,21 ,834 I - and further interest till realization. The appellants-defendants have withhold the payment which the respondr:nt-plaintiff is entitled for abnormal period of 32 to 39 \/ I 6/L7 BRMR,J AS.No.34l_2020 months which is clear breach of contract and violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India, also against the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003. Respondent-plaintiff has got issued legal notice to the appellants-defendants on 21.os.2o15 but they failed to give reply in spite of receiving the same. The claims above the value of Rs.5o,o00/- shall be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction as the suit is valued above Rs.15,OO,000/- as such the I Additional District Judge Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

4.1. Appellant No.4-defendant No.4 has filed his written statement and contended that the respondent-plaintiff was entrusted with 16 works and 11 works were executed. During departmental inquiry, it was found that there was deficiency in quantities in 8 works out of 11 numbers of works entrusted by appellant No.4-defendant No.4 for a value of Rs.77,806.461- (deficient quantities). During inquiry, it was found that the respondent-plaintiff has recorded the works to a tune of Rs.32,52,O63.9O/- than actual work done for Rs.3L,74,257.441-. The respondent-plaintiff fraudulently got recorded Rs.77,806 ,461- for which Vigilance & Enforcement inquiry is initiated. One G.Vasanth Reddy filed Wp.lt o.15L26 of 2OO9 seeking enquiry in the irregularities of the works executed under SRSP. Vigilance & Enforcement filed its Report No.13, dated OS.O2.2O1O.which -\ ./ ./ 7117 BRMR,J AS.No.341-2O20 advised t,re Department to conduct detailed inquiry in all the maintenarlce works executed between 2OO7 -O8, 2O08-O9, 2009- 10. The respondent-plaintiff with a malafide motive only reflected delay in payments for l1 works where fraudulent measurements were recorded for 8 number of works. The delay is due to Vigilance & Enforcement in view of the fault committed by the respondent- plaintiff e.nd other Contractors in SRSP in getting recorded more measurer.rents than what was actually done by them.

4.2. Thr:re is no dispute as to quality with regard to 11 works as shown in the Annexure by the respondent-plaintiff. As per lOOo/o verification by the Department there is a deficiency in quantities in 8 number of works out of 11 works to a tune of Rs.77,8O6.46/-. Inspection of all the maintenance works of SRSP during the years 2OO7-O8,2OO8-09 and 2OO9-10 is still continuing. The responde nt-plaintiff has no moral right much less the legal right to question the delay in payment and the suit is barred by law.

5. Appellant Nos.1 to 3-defendant Nos.l to 3 have adopted the written statement of appellant No.4-defendant No.4. 6 The learned Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages at Rs. 17,21,834 I - with interest prayed for? AS I 8lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.341_2020 2 3 4 5 6 Whether the plaintiff was entrusted with 16 works in the name of M.Santhosh Rao as contended by defendants in their written statement? Whether the Vigilance and enforcement enquiry and departmental enquiry it revealed that plaintiff got recorded more work than the work done by him to get more money as contended by the defendants in their written statement? Whether there is any deficiency in quantity of work done by plaintifll> Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? To what relief.2

7. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.l and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the appellants-defendants DW.l-G.Srinivas is examined and got marked Exs.B1 to El7.

8. ' The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellants-defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 17,21,8341- with interest @ L8% per annum for the delayed payment on principal amount of Rs.31 ,85,170 I - with future interest @ 6%o per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos.l to 4 subrlits that the learned trial Court has held that the \/ 9117 BRMR,J AS. No.34 1-2020 responder,t-plaintiff is not responsible for inordinate delay in execution of works and therefore the appellants are liable to make the payrnents and the learned trial Court has incorrectly placed burden on the appellants-defendants. Suit is barred by limitation, the said issue is not framed by the learned trial Court anl incorrectly awarded interest @ 18o/o per annum contrary to the settled proposition of law.

9.2. The learned trial Court incorrectly held that the appellants-defendants are liable to pay the amount and also failed to :onsider Ex.Bl-Enquiry Report and prayed to allou, the Apperrl by setting aside the impugned judgment.

10.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly decreed the suit. It is the appellants- defendants who made delayed payments and no interference is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Rakesh Kumar Jain and Another Vs. Statr: of U.P.Thr.Collector and Anotherr, (21 G.V.Malla Reddy & Co., Hyderabad Vs. A.P. State Trading Corporation Ltd., Hyrlerabad and Another2, (3) M/s. S.N.Nandy & Co. Vs. z 1 RtR zoo7*segtz 2 2oro (a) rrLD 331 (DB) i LO/t7 BRMR,J AS.No.341-2020 M/s. Nicco Corporation Ltd.3 and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 1O.2. Respondent-plaintiff counsel has filed his written submissions in support of his contention. 1 1. Heard both sides, perused the material L2. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.115 of 2015 dated 27.02.202O suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

13. Ex.Al is the letter addressed by Sri B.Radha Kishan, 8.E., Executive Engineer, Pochampad - SRSP Dam Site to the Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Rama Sagar Project, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, dated 13.08.2012 which shows that the Non Destructive Tests (NDT) has been conducted to assess the compressive strengths of different components of Cement Concrete Works executed by the respondent-plaintiff for 10 works. Ex.A2 is the Statement showing the list of works Non-Destructive Tests (NDT) conducted on the works carried out by the respondent- plaintiff. s.Qere are 10 items in Ex.A2 which are the same as shown in the plaint except AB.No.165/EE dated t9.99#., It is l 3 cslos1 No.2448 of 2000 dated 23.02.2011 of the High Court for the State of Delhi tutT tsRMR,J AS.No.34 1_2020 apt to nol.e that in the Remarks column it is stated that the works are satislact<>ry. Ex.A3 is the copy of Legal Notice, dated 21.05.2015 got issued by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant;-defendants claiming interest for delayed payments. Ex.A4 is lhe (iovernment Memo No.3697/Ser,VI(V&EIAI / 2010-26, dated L6 06.20 1 I wherein guidelines were issued for processing the payrnents. Ex.AS is the copy of Government Memo No.3697lSer.VII(V&E)A|l20lO-22, dated 28.O4.2O11 wherein instructic,ns \\rere issued regarding making of payments to Water User Asscciations. Ex.A6 is the Extract of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated Ol.O7.2Ol)3, clause 22 states as under: "22. Payment of Bills: The contractors will be permitted to submit their work bills once in a month and pa5,ment will be made after proper check of quantity . anrl quality within a reasonable time limit. The final pavment of the contractor should not be delayed for want of certificate from the quality control staff'.

14. Thr: evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is the replica of its plaint averments. In his cross-examination he stated that he has done the contract works in the year 2OO8-09 and basing on the writ Petition an inquiry was conducted by the vigilance and Enforcenrent Department in the year 2011. Respondent-plaintiff denied the suggestion that he did not complete his contract u,ork within tLLe qlescribed period and delay was caused in making the ) T, 12117 BRMR,J AS.No.341-2020 payment due to Vigilance and Enforcement enquiry in the year 2ol1 and also denied the suggestion that he did not complete the entrusted work within time, as the delay occurred on his side thereby he received the amount after the delay.

15. Ex.B1 is the Vigilance and Enforcement Department Enquiry Report No.13, dated O5.O2.2O10 for the years 2OOT-O8,2008-09 and 2009-10. The recommendations made in the report is to recover an amount of Rs.31,65,754/- from the agencies concerned for the works which were recorded and paid but not actually executed in the field and also initiate criminal action against the Farmers Orgaoizations who has misappropriated by claiming bogus bills without executing the works and also initiate action against the of{icers (81 Nos.) for the lapses as recomrnended. Bx.bZ is the copy of the order in W.P.No.1St26 of 2OOg, d.ated

18.08.2010. The order reads as under: "Action of the respondents in respect of alleged irregularities appears to be the cause of the Writ Petition which is responded to by the action taken report based on the advice of the Andhra Pradesh Vigitance Commission suggesting action proposed which stands initiated. In that view of the matter, no further orders are called for. Dismissed. We hope and trust that the process initiated shall be taken to its logical end expeditiously and of co/rse in accordance with law" <4'1 t3lt7 BRMR,J AS.No.341-2020

16. Ex.B3 is the Agreement No.166, dated 19.08.2009 for an amount cf Rs.6,05,00O/- for the works to be carried out which is serial No.2 of Ex.A2. Ex.B4 is the Measurement Book Record pertains :o Agreement No. l2l8lB which is not the subject matter of the works and is not covered in Ex.A2. Ex.BS is a Measurement Book pel'tains to Agreement No.164. Ex.B6 Measurement Book pertains to Agreement Nos.204 & 2O5 and Ex.B7 is the Measurertent Book pertains to Agreement No.2O6 which are at serial Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Ex.A2.

17.1. Executive Engineer of appellant No.4-defendant No.4 is examined as DW.1-G.Srinivas whose evidence is with regard to the works entrusted to the respondent-plaintiff for 11 items which is in consonance with the statement furnished by the respondent- plaintiff stated. supra at Para No.3.2 and the High Court has directed inquiry with regard to the works executed under SRSP Canal between 2OO7-LO.

17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the payment for the works ,fone by the respondent-plaintiff was already made to him and thr: suit is for the interest amount, there is no dispute about the quurlity of the ,*,ork done by the respondenl'plaintiff and all the works^ouqre concluded and wP.No. 15L26 of 2OOg is filed by / / a t' 11117 BRMR,J AS.No.34 1_2020 G.Vasanth Reddy which is not related to the subject matter of the suit and they have issued orders to stop the works after filing of the Writ Petition, the payment was not made even on the date of WP.No.3823 of 2oll and Batch of cases, the said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 01.03.2011 directing the payments to be made by 31.03.2011. The payment has to be made within one month from the date of completion of the work vide G.O.Ms.No.94 dated

01.07.2003 (Ex.A6) and there is no clause in the Agreement for payment of interest on the delayed payment. DW.l denied the suggestion that they are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment as claimed in the suit.

18. As per Ex.BS the Measurement Book is dated 05.07.2009, Ex.B6 also records the same Measurement date and Ex.B7 records the date of Measurement as 05.06.2OO9. Respondent-plaintiff has annexed statement which is stated supra at Para No.3.2 which goes to show that date of recording the measurements for all the 11 items are in the year 2OlO (for serial Nos.l to 8); in the year 2OO9 (for serial Nos.9 to 11). In Column 9 of the table shows the date of payment is on 29.01.2013 for all the 11 items executed by the respondent-plaintiff. Admittedly payments were made to the respondent-plaintiff after three years of recordirlg the measurements. \ \\ tsltT BRMR,J AS.No.341_2020

19.1. Th: learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 4 contendec that separate suits have to be filed for recovery of interest a.rd the respondent-plaintiff cannot join different cause of action pertaining to the works. The learned trial Court has taken into cons;ideration the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure: Code, 1908, which contemplates that the respondent- plaintiff nray join in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendants (appellants herein) in which they are jointly interestec[. I9.2. It is the case of the appellant No.4-defendant No.4 in the written s[atement that altogether 16 works were entrusted to the respondent-plaintiff but no material is filed . by them to substant:.ate their contention.

20. Appr:llant's counsel contended during the course of arguments that suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation. Though the learned trial Court has not framed the issue of limitation in the issues but has answered the same in Para 19 of its judgrnent. As per Ex.A6 Para 22 states that Contractor is permitterl to submit their work bills once in a month and the final payment of the Contractor should not be delayed for want of Certifica:e from the Quality Control Staff. Admittedly, measurement pertaining to Agreements of 11 in number were I i i t6lL7 BRMR,J AS.No.341_2020 taken in the year 2oo9 and 2oto and the final payments were made to the respondent-plaintiff on 2g.ol.2ol3. Ex.A3-Legal Notice came to be issued on 2r.0s.2015 and the suit came to be filed on 15.06.2015 which is filed within three years from the date of cause of action and it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation 2o.1. In Rakesh Kumar Jaint, the Supreme court has awarded simple interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. 2o-2. In G.v.Malla Reddy2, the High court held that denial of interest @ l8o/o per annum by the court below is not justified. 2o.3. In S.N.Nandy3, the High court of Delhi observed that .the cause of action would arise from the date when the assertion of claim was made, where the bill has not finally prepared, the claim made by the claimant is the accrual of cause of action. 2L. The learned trial court has properly appreciated the contentions of the parties in detail and rightly decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff with interest @ l8%o per annum holding that the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 4 arejointly and severally liable to pay Rs.17,2 7,834 /- for the delayed payment of principal amount of Rs.31,85,17o1-. The payment of delay is mentioned in column {t[o.10 of the statement stated supra at para No.3.2. ,Appellants- \ L7117 BRMR,J AS.No.341-2020 defendanl. Nos.l to 4 have not made out any case to interfere with the judgnrent. and decree passed by the learned trial court' This court is of the view that Appeal deserves no consideration and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed'

22. Irr the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs. Int=rim C)rders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous applicati<tn/ s stands closed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To

1. The I Aclditional District Judge at Karimnagar' (with Records) 2. r"wo ccs dih; c;;il;;_qi PG;A;i For Appeais, Hish court for the state of 3. one cc to dri.'iJi/rll;An, Aovdcate toPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies Telangana, at HYderabad [OUTI Pr/SA Yv -,' i _;;--. t -, -: HIGH COIJRT DATED i 2211212025 JUDGMENT AS.No.341 of 2020 si4 t C) 1 2 tEB 2026 * C.-. * DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOU]T COSTS n c"{'r W IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 341 OF 2020 Between: '1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, I and CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Administrator-Cum-Chief Engineer, SRSP, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District.

3. The Superintending Engineer, G.V.C-|V, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District.

4. The Executive Engineer, Division .No.4, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District. AND ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS Muthineni Santhosh Rao, S/o. Laxman Rao, age: 40 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.H.No.5-1 1-1 78, Naimnagar, Hanmakonda, Warangal. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal under Section 96 of CPC., against the Judgment and decree dated 27 .02.2020 passed in O.S.No.1 15 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar at Jagtial. This appeal is 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Govemment Pleader For Appeals, for the Appellant and of Sri. P Mallaiah, Advocate for the Respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That thi:s Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That therre shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY/ Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The I AdCitional District Judge at Karimnagar. 2. Two CD Copies Pr/SA Ya- HIGH COIJRT DATED: 2:,211212025 a ? DECREE AS.No.341 of 202A DISMISSIiNG THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS t*'td k-