The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri K. Gopalal Krishna Murthy The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT ::7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COUR T APPEAL NOs. 12 0F 2006 AN D 33 0F 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hoft'blc.Slll. Jllstr. e Tourruia Devi Eadrt) 'l'hesetn'oappcarlsarefilc'clll\thtirl)lxllant(s)aggrievedbv the judgment and decrcc clarecl '10'O7'20oi:r p:rsst'rl in O S No 447 ol 2OOO by the learned X Additional Chiel''Judgc' City Civil Court' Hyderabad (here inalter rclerred to lrs'tht'trial Cor'rrt')' ). F-or cortve I r ient;t-- trncl cl:tritr . Lhc pitt t it s htrcitl tlrc relt--rred to as they were arrayed belbre thc triul Cottrt'

3. The case of the plainti[l- lrt'lirrc thL tri:tl (]or:rL is thiit the plaintilt rs a comparlr erlg:tgt rl itl [irllrl( irtlon illld crcction of structural works in tht: industrial ltl-rils ittrr-l it iras its rcgistered olfice at Chandanagar, H]'derabacl Thc pluintiff compan)r oflcred to execute l-he contra(lt rvorl< ol [iibrit:Ltion and erection of strllctural stcel u.ork:rt NTPC sitt'. Sirlllrirrlrl oIl t()nllage rate basis and that the defcndant No.1 cotnp:in1- h2ls ilcccpl(]d the same and entruSted the r,',ork. While crt.t.r.rtirrq tIl.. saicl u'rlrk, the plaintifl has cxperrentic(l hardstlips :rnrl Lltc silrrr( \\ils r:rlrnmunictt tecl to dcl'cndant No. I and tI)aL thcre \\'erc oll( I ()Lls jolr requirements to be performcd and tht: clcsigns acloprt:cl ll deli'ndant No 1 w'as 2 A(S,] & EID,] lound to bc highly ciisproportionate to the mark.,l rat('s:lnal cl Lle to thc uridrrc hardship, the plaintitf coulpa n \ u.ouncl up its ol)cratrons q,ith immediate effect in the month ot Mar., 2O0O ancl has inlc rmcrl the dclcndant No. 1 compan_1. LhroL qlr irs lcttt,r rlared 18 0.5.2()Oo. The plaintifl has requcsted the r,r,li_,ndanr \o.I t() arrange a ga[e pass lor removing its equipmer.rt ris it has stoppecl rts activity brrt thc dclendant No.1 failed to arra ]g() lbr tht s:rrne His equicmcnt and machinery got stallcd in thc r1efbnclar'lt No. l (:ontpan_v ancl thert hc had to pal,the supplicrs lirr_ Lhe cquiprr1ent to zrn extenl of Rs.22,01,500/_ and that due to rmrnobilizarion of thc equipmcn j, the ltlarntiff suffered damage er.err rJa-r.. l_-u rLl_rer, defendanr No.1 company has invoked a ban., guerrantc() of mobilization advance ancl i ltpropriatr cl t he compl.y the requcst of rlrc pli:inlifl. irr for rentoving thc equrprnicnl .l.ltLls, hands of .de fendant, he c:lirinted damages accruccl ancl danr:rg.s; .[ the datc o[ plaint, trll t]tc clefcr.rd,rnrs l-he plaintrff to rcmove plarnt schedure itemr; [.om thr: sire Paravada, Visakhapatnam. llcnce, hc lt:rs arrernging thc gaLe pass having sullcrecl at the Rs. l, I 1,000/ ro\r,ards Rs.3,000/ - pt:r day from same but h;rs failcd Rs. 7,30,Or)0,/ - towarcls permlt of dclendarrt No.2 at filed thc sui r. { 3 AK5,] & ETD,]

4. Delendant No.2 has remained ex parte :rnd delenclant No.1 has filed written statement den_r.ing the lurisdiction. The dcfendant No.I has aclmitted the ltrct that dclcndanL No.1 company has offered to execute the contr:rcr vr,ork of labrication and erection of structural sLeel u,ork s ith Cclcnciant No. 1 company and that afler scvcral rourrcls oI ncgoLiations, the plaintiff submitled its revised offer ancl finaltl rhc dcfendant has accepted the offer of the plaintif[, sr-rbjcct to the terms and conditior-rs setup thcrcin zrnd it also <:ontc-ndt-d that:r dcrailed r,",ork order was issued on 10.02.2000 to the delenclant anrl thaL as per clause 32 of the lerms and conditiorrs anncxecl to thc r,r ork ordcr, the ptaintiff has to providc all thr: constructiotr ccluiltrncnts Iikc Cranes, Hydro Cranes, Tools, Tackles ancl scaffoldings required for the contract and that thc plainrilf u'ers supposecl to lurnish the list of all the equipment thar r,r as goirrg ro be installed bv him, but he failed to do so. Ir is fi-rnhe r contenclcd bv delenclant No.2 that once thc plaintifl has agr.ccd lbr thc cxc<:urion ol contract, he cannot complain sal,ing th:tt it is itn oncrorrs _1ob. lt further contended that thcir Managcr itas ctrllt <.1 thc Malzrging Director of the plaintiff companv and rr'qrrested him to continue the job in the month of May but thc plaintifls coml)anv acrcd in violalion oI the contract and has abandoncd the sitc r.r.ithorrt anv 1r-rstilicatior.r, rvhich zrmounts to brca('h ol ('()nLrilcr arrcl thar irr lac[ 4 AKS,] & ETD,] l , i 1 furnishr rl br- thc plainLill he is liirble [o (]ompensalo the defcndant. IIc li.u. -rcr contcnded thar thc defendanI u,as c:onstraincd to address l(.ttcrs c.rlllrrg upol_l thc piairrtilf to scnd lts reI)rcsentative so that rlt, J_.)te naSS can l)(, issued ; fter scrutinv of Lhc documents but the plainLiff has not chosen [o take any st,'ps to collec t Lht: equipme'rt alicgcdly l1.rng zrt the site and that th l olain tiff has no bonafider; in rloing so. It is further alleged th;rt rhe dr:fenclzrr.rL in turn havrr paid t.hc \\raqcs ()[ 150 workmen lor lhr:r: moltths lo an extcnt oI Rs.9,56, lS2l,, \^ hich the plaintilf is lirrbLe to rctrlrn Lo them anc that thc defcndant had to pay an arlditional surn of Rs. 1 ,1507 - per Mctric To, t. complete the work alrrtndorr:d ltr lhe plaintifl'a td also the amount incurred lor demolit on cl. thc site ol the plainriff, lhus in all, the plaintilf is liabir: Lo paJ, them Rs.31,99,(r43/- trnd praled for dismissal of the sui ..

5. Plair tifl has tiled a re.loinder denying rhr: allcgari..s statement saying that col tcnttons of tho mentioned in thc wnt[en dcfcnclant .r ith rcgard ro the abandonment arc not tc-naltk.. I.lc [rrrthcr su l).l.ritterd thal he has r.otnpk_.tcd the u'ork to a rar.e or- Rs.2g. 13,6g4 l- and the defendiLr_rI Nc,. ] in alr has paid Rs.25,g5,936 I ancl encashed the bank guarantct: of Rs.7,3O,OOO/ - anrl that Lhe dcfcndant No. 1 rs liablc to pa-v to thc baseless :rnd arc 5 AKS,I & ETD,] plaintilT a sum of Rs.9,57,74g1_ and that the claim of defc,dant No. I is falsc and baseless

6. Based on thc above pleadings, thc trial Court follou,ing poin ts for consicleration : frarncd the " I ) Whcther the plaintiff is entitled ro dama sought in the plaint? ges as 2) Whether the defendant No. I countcr claim as claimed statemcnt? is entttlccl to thc in thc u.rittcn 3) To u,hat relieP"

7. At rhe time of trial, plaintitf got examincd PW 1 ancl got marked Dxs.A I to A5. On behalf of thc de[crrdan rs, tht. accountanI of defendant No. I company ts examined as DW I and got markcd trxs.B I to 833

8. Bascd on Lhc evidence on record, the trial Court has 1:arrrh decrced the suit on 30.07.2005, which reads as follorvs: "[n the result, thc suit is partly decreed granting mandatory injunctron against defendant No. t to i"ssue g"arc pzlss to defendar-rt No.2 to permlt the plaintiff to rem"ovc iL" schcdule items also for gra;rt of dccree against the ".,,t defcndant No.l Company for Rs. l,1 1,000/l rowarcis damages accrucd till the date ot l'iling of [hc surt and darnages o{-R.s.30OO/- per dar, lrom thc clite of rhc plainr rill .-lanuary, 200 l, but in tl.rc circumst.rnces of rht: case the partres shall bear their own costs,,. AKs,] & ETD,I 6 g. Aggricvccl bt' thc said judgmcnt and decree' CCCA No l2 of 2O06 is filed bv defendatlt No. I in the suit i.e. N4/s.Larscn & Tourtro Lirnilcd. u'trile CCCA No.33 of 20 i I is filed bv tlre pleirntiff i.c. M/s.G K.llrcctors Pvt. Ltcl.

10. Heald tl.re submissions of Sri S.Niranjan Rr:dd1 , lczLnred counscl io' tlrt: appe[[arrt. in CCCA No.l2 of 2006 a rd Sri K.('i'rpala Krishna Murlhr. Iearttr:d cottttscl lor the appellant rrr CCCIA No.33 of 20 11.

11. The letirned appcllant cr-runsel in CCCA No l 12 of 200(r has submitted thrrt tl're tri:rl Court has committed a serio'-ts error u'hile awarding dzrrnages ol Rs. 1,1 1,OO0/- and als:r damagr's @ Rs.3,OOO/ pcr da1' from the date of surt till Ja rtLan', 20O I in favour ol t:)e plainl-i1'l without anv cogent cvidence I Ie has furtl'rer submitted thal lhe sltc uas urlder the control oI rit:fendatlt No.2 and t.he grrtc pass also had to be issued by cleferrdzrnt No 2 and that the plaintiil has abandoned the si[e on h s ou t-t and he cannoL cle inr damagcs. Thc trial Court ought not to havc l'clicd upon Ex.A 5 s,hich is addressed to the appellant rrncl that in any event the appcllant is not liable to pay any compt:trsaLion to Lhe plaintiff and that thc orders passed in I.A.No.1094/200O rvas reTitcff upon ll' thc trral Court, u,hile thc same ar (' not finaL and conclusive. Thereforc. Irc praved to sct aside tht -juclgment and AK\,] & ETD I 7 decree of the trial Court b1'' allou'ing l-his appcal and furthcr has prayed to allow their counter claim, since they sulfered hear'1' damages as they had Lo execute the remaining r"'ork and also had to pal,thc emploS'ces lor three months. | 2. The learned appellant counsel in CCCA No.33 of 20 i I has argued that the trial Court has rightly considered his praler in

1.A.No.1094 of 2OOO and has ordered lor arranging the gate pass bv defendant No.I and also the trial Court has correctlt' calculated [he damages and that there is no nced to rnterfere u'rth the judgment in that rcgard. He has further submitted that thc trinl Court has committed an error rn disallou'irrg the cos[s rrr<:urred by th<: plaintill'in thc suit and a[so in the counter claim Iilecl b1' del'endant No. 1. The trial Court ought to have gratrted lhc costs in the sr-rit ancl in the counter claim to an extcnt ol lis.9.+,894/-. Itc submit,ted thaL they suffcred heavy damagcs cl ut: to the inacLion ol defendant No.l and iurthcr during the period o1' litigzrtion also they suffered, therefore, they need to be au'arcled 1he above said costs, hc thcrefore, prayed to granL the same in rhis appcal

13. Bascd on the above rival submissions, the follorn'ing points rr rise for dctermina(ion 8 AKS,] & EID,] ' 1l Whcrher th" plaintili rs cnrirl,.d oamages, rl su, to vl'hal cxlent.? Whe ther the Tourbo Limited, as pra-t,ed for? defendant No. 1/M/s Larsen & rs entitled to the r:ounter clztim 2) to clrrim i 3) 4) Whether Court is s the ludgmcnt and dccree ol. rl.rc trial usl:rinable undcr lari :r ncl rn lhc lact.si" To u'har relicp 14, PC,INT NO.1: a) Th: plaintifl conlp:ur-\, offe red to carrv- out itlrricatrng u.orks w'ith defe ndant No_ I compan.y and defendant Nr . 1 acccpted thc samc. a ftcr commencing thc wr rk' cornpany has the plaintiff Com pant, difliculrl noticcd cerla in difficultics and ha s (rxpr-esse,d its and thus, uound up ils acttvi(ies.'lhereafter, iI requcsted for arranging a gate pass to rcmove its erluipment, but defcndanl Nr,. I Lril,.d l,) l{slte thc samc . As ii res I lr of u,hich, he suflered hugc loss in p:r.r.ir-rg lor the cquipmcnL a rrj also he had rncurred huge damages due to the imn-robil;zzltion of the thus, he claimcd the damages ol Rs.1,1l,O0O/_ machinery and along with Rs 3.OOO/ per dar. b) Thc c r:fcndant No. I has filcd its rvritten statetn(.nt and also a counter clairTI stati[rg that in fact it has incurred huge loss due to tl're inaction of tite platintifi- in not czrrrv*ing out rltc jolt as per r':qurre ment, thar hc sLrl.lerecl huge loss by cr tnltleting the 7 AKS,] & ETD,] 9 rem.iining job u'ork and also hc had to pay ths emplol,ces lcr r about three months, thereforc, he incurred damagcs and inturn rhc <.lelbndant No.I htrs raised a counter claim to an extcnt o[ Rs.33,99,Oa3/ - c) In support o[ its claim, PW 1 got marked the exhibits out o[ u,hrcl'r Exs.A3 and A4 1all crucial to dccide this issue- A perusal ol' Ex.A3 reveals that it is a letler dated 29 .I2.1999 , rr"'herein defcndant No. i has addresscd a letter to thc plaintiff companS' acccpting thc offer ol the plaintil[. Thc same is nol in dispute. It is an admittcd facr that the plainLiff has offered and the delendant No. I has acccpted its offer lor the fabrication and crccliott ol strtrctural steel u,ork at defcndant No.2 site and trx.A4 relers to thc annexlrre to thc I(r tter ()1' rntent issued by dcfendant No.1, u'herein the job description is given, stating that the quantity o[ u,ork that has to be carried is to an extent of l50O mctric tonncs. Fnrther, E-x. B 1 2 is the ri'ork order issued by defendant No. I in lavour of the plaintiff, u'herein they have spccified the nature ol u,rlrk that hns to bc carncd out alot-tg r,"'ith the Lerms ancl concirtions laid cloq'n under ir. Thcre are clear terms and conclitions rrvrth regalcl to the price variation and quantity variation and also thc time of comple tion. As per the said work orclcr, the plaintiff has to provide all thc cottstruction e quipmcrl I 10 A<5 ] & ETD,] -t! like Cra.es, H]'dra Crane s, to.ls, tackles &, sr:a'lbJcli.gs rr:quired for pre-asscmblr,'ercctron, tcstrng a.cl commissi.nir-rg ol the r,vork under ttLe co.tract. 'rhus, it is clearry stated rhat the praintiff should submit to thc delcndant No.1 a list of zrll sucl-r materials and il hirs to install all the equipment as listed therc.in. tn the coursc o thc above br_:sjncss transaction, thr. 1,12 jnli;1 company expressc<l difficultics and in the coursc of discussior-rs held with the defcndant No. I corlpan-1., expressed the circlrmstances which necessita[ed th. plai.ti[l contp:ln-\. ftrr *inding r:p irs aclir.itics with imrr edial_c eflect in Lhe month o[ May, 20()0 vide its letter dated 18 05.2000, thc same is liled under Ex.AS. .1.hrough letter, th( plaintrlf has cxpresscd its inability to rnobilize further funds anC ellilztgc lhc workers on job and tl ar thcre is no productro I sincc 13.05.2000, thus under the circrtn-lst:rnces, lhey are compclled 1o wiudup Lhe sitc activities vrrth im:ncdieric effect. d) It is; clcarlv evidt:nt Lhat the plairrtiff ltas s.ound up iLs activities ,vith immcdiatc eflect from l g.O5.20OO arrcl rt has also sought fo- pcrmission to closc their actir.ities. Thi.reaftr:r, it wanted to vacate the pr.cmises by removing its equiprncnt. It is borne out b1' rccord that I.A.No. 1094 of 2000 uas filed b1. the plaintifl sceking a direct.ion agarnst the dcferdant Nirs. r and 2 to providc gale pass to thc I)laintiff to removc the pJairriff rnachtncrv 11 AK5,J & ETD,] lrom thc site of dcfcnd:rnl No.2. Thrrs, the trial Court after lteartng l;oth sidcs, has granted the said relief and no revision has been prcfcrred against the said orders and thus, it became final. Until thc plarnrilT sought fbr thc gate pass by fiting I.A.No. IO94 of 20OO ancl gor thc orde rs ol' Lhe Court, rhe defcndants failed to arrange for the samc. That means, ti thart date thc equipment of plaintiff u..rs Iying in the prcmises of dcfendant No.2 and it was the duty ol defcnd:tnt No.1 to iirrange lor gate pass for immediaLe removal of rhe ecluipmcnt. Evcn altcr obtaining the said orders, the plaintift could nor collect the material clue to the inaction of the defbndan ts. e) Ex.B8 is datcd 07.03.200 I wherein the defendant No.1 has requesred the plainLi[f to give a lisr of rhe relevant inward entries and the necessary documents so as to arrange for the gate pass. It hzrs responded through its lerter to the orders passed by the court daled '26.02.2001, Lhar tneans evcn after the court has passed the orders in the IA to arrange for a gate pass, the delendant No. I l:ril.d to clo so :rnd in adcliLion to which it has bee, addrcssi.rg lctLcrs to rhc plai.rrlf aski'rg lirr several other details, though the equipmcnt \\.as vcry much lying with that company. Exs.B9 and Bl0 are lhe letters issuccl in pursuance of thc i.junction ordc's aski.g for thc details ol the equipments, so zrs Lo t2 't A(S,J & ETD,J \ arr:1nfle for gatc pass. tlx.B I 1 is the lcttcr of thc ltlainttll expressi -rg its dillicultr rhat rlte documen s pcrtaining to Simhadri silr: q,erc takcr.t into custody l;t Oentral Excisc - Dcpartment lor tax pa',.mcnt valuation ancl thu;. rhe,,. corrld noI furnish the satd documents ancl that thev havr. lteen negotiating u,ith lhe tax departmcnt for the past four mor.r lt s and wLthin a period ot' 15 davs they can arrange for thc dol.lrmcr,lts and he requesterl to arrange [or gate pass vr itl.rout ll (] entn deliVery challans. so thzrt hr: c:rn take back the matc'rar ir,mecrierte ly. Therefore, it is clcar that the defenciant deprived the rights of the plairlilf frr takirg thc maclri.en' lrom thc sitc .1 clt:ferdant No.2, though the plaintitf Oornpan-v cxprcsscd irs dilticult.y on

18.05.20O0 and rcque sted lor a gate pass, defcrrl:rnt ],1o. I lailed to comply the same inspite of the orclcrs in LA.No. 1()94 ,:f 2OOO. 0 As discusscd supra, the plair-rtrfl has cr.er.ted a lor oI machinerr and cquipmcnt in Lhc prcrnises ol f.iair-rtif.l. lL u,as elicited drrring the cross cxamination of pW i rh,rt hc u.as given 1500 tonr es ol' u,ork but no matcrial rr.zrs supplictl tr-, hirn anrl that he has ccmpletcd 8OO Lonnes of s,ork. DW 1 l.ras :rlso adn-ritted during hi:; cross examination that for taking etw e., the material from the r;ite, gate pass is requircd and that th( gate pass \vas given only alter tl.re injur-rclion orders passed b1.rhe lrial Oourt AKs,] & ETD,] 13 ancl that they could arrange for the same after shou'ing the said orders to thc defcndant No.2 company g) Thus, it- is clicitcd from the evidcnce on record that the equipment of plaintiff was lying in the defendant No.2 premises and he stopped the q'ork after intimating thc defendant No. I vide irs letter under Ex.A5 and has aiso requested for a gatc pass but the dcfendant No.1 has lailed to issue ant' gate pzrss and thus, his equipment was lf ing immobilizcd in thc premises o[ dcfendant No. I and thereforc, he rs entitled [o seek damages ol Rs. I, t l,OOO/ - as claimed b1' hrm from the ptaintiff. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. POINT NO.2: a) The case of thc delendernt No. 1 rs that it has incurred huge expcnditure lrrr carn'ing out thc balanr:e o[ rvork left over by the plaintitl and also that he hacl to pa1' lor rhe n agcs of the workers for three months. As pcr the contract thc plaintiff had to fabricate 230 I MTs and the plaintifl labricated only 630 MTs and the balance i.e. 1617O MTs rvas got tlonc by rhe delendant at thc additronal cost of Rs. 19,21,55 1/ (Rs. 1l5O/- pcr Mt). Thereby the delendants claim is that thc additional cost of Rs.19,21,551/- incurred by delendant No. t has to be compensated by the plaintiff as the plainti[[ abanckrncd tl]c uork Bcsjrlcs that they' also 74 \-i AKs,l & ErD,). i .l i\ lurthr:r claimed an anrount ol Rs.35,OOO1- ;LIiegcd to have bcen sp( nr b). thc delendanr for clcmolition ol Llrt_. .srrc office, of the pla ntiff. Altogethcr. the claim of delend:rr1ts r:i to\,,,ards wages pairl to the plaintiff ,"vorkmen , Rs.g,56, 152 ,_, Lakhs. consumablcs issued advancer pard - Rs.3 lo thc plairrrifl Rs.85,340/ -, additional cost incurred by them _ Rs. t9,-l l,SS l /- and amounr tnct rrr:d lor demolition of tl-re site _ Rs.35,Or)0,/_. Thus according to dr:fendants, the plaintiff is liable to pa1, Rs.3 ),()r,,O43/_. b) Exs.82 to 86 arc thc letters zrcldr csscrl on bchalf of M/s.Larsen & Tourbo Limrted / Defendir n r \tr I ;o the plaintiff coml)any saying that tltcre is lto progrcss ot \\ orl( and that they need Lo improvc their:tction and Ex.B7 is a l, ur.r adclrcssed by the defcnclant to the plaintifl to makc pa-vrrl€ ltrs t() the \a/orkmen lor tlrc month of Aprrl, 2000. On this a:,i),r(.1, the plarntiff,s averrrcnt is that it hacl u,ound r-rp its acrir..itics from 1U.05.2000 and it h:rs also paid thc u,ages till then, rvhilt, thc rlcfendant had averreC through its coll.tcr claim that for tltr,,e rnrinths it had tcr pay tllc \\'ages to thr: cmplo_vccs on bchall oi the plaintiff. []ouev:r, in Ex.87 it has acldresscd a lettcr to r]rc: plaint;ff sal,ing that h r has not paid ti,rc r,,r,age s for [hc mor rlr ol Aprrl, 2000, nowher e it is mentione.l that the plaintiff had to ltav ihe .u,ages lor three rrron ths. This lalsifies the statement of thr: rlc[cnclant. 15 AKS,] & ETD,] - c) As secn from thc evrdence of DW 1, [-ris contention is that as the plaintiff abandoncd the u,ork ,"vithout any justification and the plaintift has not paid rhe u,ages to the .,r,orkmcn engaged by it for thc months o[ May, June and .JLrl1. 2OOO, ultimately, the labour u'orkmen cmploved b1' the plaintilT raised dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour VisakhapaLnam. d) Here, it is thc case of the plaintill that the_t. u,ound up the u,ork in May 2O00. [n the cross examination of the plaintiff, he has categoricall-y stated that. rhct.havc paid v".agcs to [he workmen up to April, 200O. That being so if the contention o[ the defendant that they have paid the u,orkcrs under thc cash voucher marked as Flxs.B 13 and B32 is taken into considcration, for what purpose thc,y havc paid thc said rvagcs ro the plain trff,s workmen is a crucial point. Though thc delt ncianr claims an amount o[ Rs.8,56,162/- towards wages paid ro the plaintiff,s u,orkmcn, the claim docs not havc nn1, basis ancl rhe reason for the alleged pa-\'rncnt of uagcs to tlre uorkntcrr oI rhc plaintil'f is not known. PW t in his examination has c.rtcg<;rically staLcd that thcy paid \\/ages to Lhe n,orkmen up to Aprrl, 2OOO and there is no reason or prool as to thc. clarm ol Lhe s.or-kcrs, that tl-rcir ducs il any arc payable by the plaintif[. Tlrus, thc a\/crment made bv Lhc t6 AKS,] & ITD ] dclcnclant rvith regard to the payment of $.age:; lo the u.orkers .! appears lo bc lalsc e) Fulthcr. lhe counter claim is made b_v delcndant No.l lor Rs.19,21.5517 contending that they incurred aCclitional c:ost of Rs. I 150/- pcr MT for completion of t>alar:<:r, quanLrtv of fablication. f) Thcugh the clefendant No. 1 says rhat rl hacl inr;urred e.xpcnditu re for carrf ing out thc balance ol r,r,ork, I is not thi: casc ol thc dclenclztnt that rt had imposed ccrtain cr nr-]itions on the plaintiff t-ral in case of its failure to execut€j tltc u ork, it l,racl to pa)' thc d,:fendant No.1 for the rcmaining rvork. I-r the absencc of thc saici clause, plaintiff has no liability Lo pav lor the samc. TIte plirintrlf hrd to carry out the work as per the speciic.:ttion gir,,crr ltv defcrrclant No.I and lor the said work which is cxccuted, it had to bc paid. Thc plaintiff, thus, is not liablc to pil. tor the balzrnce uork rhat is carried out by thc dcfe:tdant. g) The letter addressed by M/s.G.K.Ereclor s R.l .Ltci.,/the plaintrff t,r dclcndant No. 1 requcsting ior qare pass aftcr rhe dcmolition ol site office is dated 13.O7.2OO,l vile Er.B33,. Ir discloscs that thc plaintiff has sought permissiort r J- rhe defcndanl to get thr sitc office dismantlecl through M/:,.Siva Padma.la \7 AKS,J & ETD,] - Transports and it has also rcquested that whatever material comes out of it, it may please bc allor,r,ed to take out of lhe sile :,rlong wi[h the gate pass. h) Thus, it is elicited through trx.B33 that elforts were made by the plaintifl to get its site dismantled and further to lilt the dismantled material and the1. requcsted thc defendant company to arrangc lor gate pass to lacihtate the same . But it is contended b1, the defendants that they have incurred expenscs for demolishing the srte ofirce of plainrift. It rs lurtltcr clicited through rhe cvidence of DWI that they have got .lccollnts lor the expenses incurred for demolition of the plaintifl,s site but has not filed the same. Thus in the abscnce of any proof no such expenses can be awardcd. i) I t is elicited lrom DW I rhar the,\. encashed the bank guarantee provided lor the plaintifl for an amount of Rs.7,OO,000/- and he also srared thar hc furnished the said statemenI ol accounr to thc plailttifl' but failed to producc any such acknowledgmenr to that effect. Thus, DW t has admrtted that their Company has encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the plaintilf. 18 AKS ] & ETD,] j) The counrer claim of Delendant No. i as to -eiuncl ol arll Lhe advzrnce paid, consumables issued and expenditu;'c for demolition ol' site ariscs onlv on examination of the accoun s lor u'hich tht: clclcndzrnt has to producc thc statcment of acc:lnnts rncluding their appropriation ol bank guarantee. The defen,lant No. 1 is not entitlcd fcr any amounts rvithout any such evidence ,ts to zrccounts- k) Orcl:r Vlll Rulc 64 of Code of Civil Proced-rre is cxrracre(l hcreundcr lrt r tltc sake of referencc "6A. Counter-claim by defendant.-(.1) A tleiendant in tr srril mar. in a(cirtror'r to itis .ight of pleading a set off under rulc (r, se1 up, ltr \\'a\ lf couDter clarm against the claim of the plair)t j-l, anv right or clarnL ir-r rcspect oI a cause of action accruing to Lhe de[endant agairrsl the plaintifl either before or after the filing ol the suit but lrt:fore thc clefendant has delivcred his defence or before tlte Linlc limit,{l fol delivering his dcfcnce has cxpired, Itctltcr su(.lr corrotcr clalm is in the nature of a claim for damages ol- not ^ Prorrded l rat such counter,claim shall not cxceed rhr. pc, Llnran lirnit; of thc juriscliction oI the court. (2) S lch c(,unter-claim shall have the samc effect as l cross sult so as Lo enallle the Court to pronounce a final juclgmcrLt iL-r the sanre slrr. holl, ,,rr thc oflginal claim and on the counler cl.r nt (J) Tee platntrff shall be at libcrtv to file a r!rttle. sr.ltcrtcnr 11 anslier ro 'he counter-claim of thc defer-rdant rtrrhin .tLrr:1r period tis ma\' lc llx( rl bV thc court- {4) Tlre countcr claim shall be treated as a plaint anC govcrncd hr the r rlcs airplicablc to plaints." I) Ord,rr Vlll Rule 6A of CPC stipulates that the .our.rter claim against th: r;lairn of thc plaintiff shall bc made in case if there is a causi) o[ action. according to thc defendants agai 'rsr thc plerintilf 19 AKS,] & ETD,J ancl sh.rll bc rrczrtcd ns plaint. The dcfe.danLs have not placed an1 cr,,idence before the Court in proof of its counlcr claim. Thor-rgh the defendants have averred that they have suffered huge krss rlue to thc inaction of the plaintiff, thc). coulcl not produce :r r-r-r cr idcncc in that regard. Thcrelore, the defendants ha'c r.t c.r case to make any counter claim against the plaintiff. Thus, it is helcl that defendants are not cntitlccr to thc courtcr claim. point I I No.2 is ansrvered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings arrived at point Nos. I and 2, it is hcld rhat the judgment and decrcc dated 30.07.20O5 passed by rhc rrial court need to be modificd that thc praintir-t is not entitrccr ro thc damages @ Rs.3,000/- per day from the dzrte of plaint till .Jzrnrrarv, 2001 that was awarded b_r, the triat court, and the suit ol the plaintiff is entitlecl to be allowed by au,arding damages to an exLe.t ol Rs.1,11,000/-. The remaining claim of the plaintitf is clisall.* ed The cor-rnter claim made by the cre fendants is dism issed ]6, POINT NO.4: In rhe resulr, C.C.C,A.No.I2 ol 2006 lilcct b1, rhe defend.rnt No. I company is partly allowed se tting aside the judgment and decrr.r' of the trial Court to the extent of damages (a, Rs.3,OOO/- g I ..1 AK5,] i LTD,J 20 s- per day Irom thc date of plaint till January , 2001, rvhrle confirming it ir thc remaining aspecLs. The C.ll C.A.No.33 of 20 I I filed r-r' thc plaintiff comparly is dismissed. N t t:osLs. Mrsc:llancous Petitions pcnding, if any, shzrll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTffi; OFFICER To,

1. The X Ad<litional Cheif Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri S Niranjan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC k, Sri K.Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Svsigh HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 - ' ,]::-:' .: I lli: - '\r v^ 10 srP ruf * i)r. \: / t ..t z7 COMMON JUDGMENT CCCA.No:12 ot 2006 AND 33 OF 2011 PARTLY A.LLOWING THE CCCA NO.12 OF 2006 AND DISMISSING THE CCCA NO.33 OF 2011 \r I lpr