The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILT AT\ID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVI COI'RT NO.322 oF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Vaktti Ramalrishna Reddy) This Appeal Suit is filed by the appettanVdefendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2003 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No .2094 of 1997, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/ptaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Z. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintifflrespondent filed the above suit vide O.S.No.2094 of t997 against the sole defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.ll ,25,101.19 paise, which includes further interest at the rate of 24o/o per annum from 08.03.lggT on which date the amount was payable to the date of the suit.

4. The case of Plaintiff is that it is a proprietary concern with its main offrce in Nagpur and a branch offrce in f!'derabad. ttlnerates in the fields ,4r''-' 2 AKS,J&VRKR,J C&A No.322-2003 of construction activity of building plans, interior decorations, marketing, and advertising. The Defendant is a- private Limited company with its principal office located in Madras (now chennai) and a branch office in Hyderabad. The ptaintiffinitiaily submitted a quotation on 15.12.1996, for excavation of black cotton soil, which was accepted by the defendant with modifications o, 17 -12.1996. A subsequent quotation for "Momrm" supply at Sanathnagar was submitted on 26.12.1996, and accepted by the defendant wlth a reduced rate. Followirrg satisfactory performance, the defendant also placed an order for the supply of various sizes of metal. Payments for alt works were to be made weekly at the site, based on measurements and the plaintiff submitted bills at regular intervals during the execution ol'the work. The plaintiff carried out excavation and related works for the dct'endant, involving material supply and use of machinery. The defendant, after verifuing the work and measurements, made payments and communicated with govemment agencies (Concor and RITES) regarding the contract. A dispute arose when the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs rvork statement but rater reduced the rates and prepared a corrected statement. The total varue of the excavated work was Rs.8,35,830/- and the plaintiflf compreted the work to the satisfaction of the defendant and principal agencies, with no complaints about quality. The plaintiff completed uq.yr earthwork activities including dressing, 3 AKS,J&VRKR,J CCCA No.322-2003 levelling, and dozing, for which a total sum of Rs.6,13,403/- was payable' Despite repeated requests and correspondence, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount, including a balance for other works. The defendant ignored requests for settlement and a meeting at their Hyderabad offrce. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover Rs. I1,25,101-19 paise, which includes interest at24Yoper annum from 8.03.1997 until the date of the suit.

5. In repty to the plaintiff averments, the defendant filed written statement and contended that it is a Private Limited Company, which had secured a contract in the year 1996 for construction work at a Container corporation of tndia Depot in Hyderabad, which includes construction of pavements, parking areas, roads, walls, and drains' Initially, M'is' Alve Construction was responsible for excavatrng and disposing of black cotton soil but after discontinuing the work, they sought sub-contractors' Unique- Quality, a former material supplier, was approached to undenake the excavation and work execution was to follow specified standards with daily quantities recorded and certified by the defendant's Engineer-in-charge. The ptaintiff began work on 17.12.1996 but failed to maintain the agreed documentation and obtain neoessary certifications' Their work was described as erratic and lacking proper machi9ery, prompting the "/ 4 AKS,J&VRKR,J CCCA No.322_2O03 engagement of subcontractors like Balaji Sai Construction-s, Tirumala Earth Movers, and Trimurthy Earth Movers. Payments were processed based on measurements approved by Concor, which appointed Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) for checking the work, with instalments paid by cheque rotalling Rs.2,94,5271- in early tgg7. Despite these payments, the plaintiff sought additional amounts for subcontractors, which the defendant refused, citing inadequate documentation and asserting that the net amouilr payabie to the plaintiit was oniy Rs. 2,95,4gg.20. Some payments, including Rs.62,059.12 and Rs.1,00,000/-, were made in March, 1997, but subsequent payments required proper documentation, which the plaintiff allegedly did not provide. The subcontractors demanded payment, claiming that the plaintiff failed to compensate them. The defendant stated that payments ra'ere released only after assessing and certifying the work. The plaintiffs request to withhold direct payments to subcontractors contradicted earlier endorsements made to satisff financiers. Balaji Sai constructions fiied a suit for Rs.3,g0,550/- including a principal claim of Rs.2,37,033/- while subcontractors stopped work due to payment disputes. The plaintiff later pressurised the defendant to rerease payments to subcontractors, but work at the site was halted on 24.04.1997. The defendant argued that payment could not be released without proper certification and alleged that the plaintiff abandoned the site on 07.03. lgg1. 5 AKS, J &VRKR, J CCCA No.322-2003 The ptaintiff s subsequent submissions lacked necessary particulars and the defendant claimed that excess payments had been made and required refund. The defendant further stated that although the ptaintiff initially instructed payments to subcontractors, this was done under pressure and later retracted. Disturbances at the site forced the defendant to settle with subcontractors directly, obtaining "no due" cer.tificates' Balaji Earthmovers was paid Rs.2,30,5281- as futl and final settlement and related cases were withdrawn in June, lgg7. After reconciling payments, the defendant concluded that Rs.2,31,164.41 paise had been paid in excess to the plaintiff and sought to recover this amount through a counterclaim' Disputes also arose over dozer charges, with disagreements about agreed rates and corrected entries. The defendant further contended that an alleged agreement with concor had no binding effect on the plaintiff, as it lacked proper party involvement. r [n response to the written statement filed by the defendant' the 6. plaintiff Frled rejoinder contending tkrat only 10% of the work was remained and at that stage the defendant illegally engaged another contractor and got completed the said work and now avoiding to pay the lawfu[ dues to the ptaintiff atleging that the plaintiff abandoned the.work without intimation' It is contended that in order to esc:p,g-gryr-n* tp tawful liability' the t." : ,r' 5 AKS,J&VRKR,J CCCA N,.322_2OO3 defendant invented a story ofexcess payment and come up wilh tre counter claim' It is further contended that the so calred agreement between the plaintiffand concor is not binding on the plaintiffas it is not a party to that agreement. The plaintiff claimed to have received Rs.4,57,5g5.40 and asserted a total workvalue of Rs.14,13,591.50, and still the defendant is due and liable to pay Rs.9,56,006.50 to the plaintiffand therefore, sought to recover the said amount. II. 7 E FRAM ED BYT E TRIA LCOURT: Basing on the above pieadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: I whether the plaintiff is entitred for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? 2 Whether the defendant is entitled for recovery, of a sum of Rs.2,31,174.41paise by way of counter claim? 3 To what reliep u.EVIDENCE ONRECORD 8' During the course of trial, the proprietor of plaintiff was examined as PWI and got marked as Exs. Al to A32. C)n rhe orher hand, on the behalf of the defendant, (D.W. l) was examined, and documents under Exs. Bl to BI I were marked. 7 AKS, J &VRKR, J CCCA No.322-20O3 IV. THE

9. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 10,40,554/-, with proportionate costs and future interest at 9Yo p.a. from the date of the suit until realization. The defendant's counter-claim was dismissed without costs.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present Appeal Suit to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. V r-D

11. The point for determination is: Whether there are any grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2003 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.2094 of 1997? VI. ANALYSIS:

12. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant submits ttrat the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record, and also failed to acknowledge the payments made by the Appellant/Defendant, specifically Rs.1,97,033/- and Rs. 97,03 3l- inApril and May, lggT,respectively, and a "No Due Certificate" issued by Tirumala Earth Movers on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff. It is further contended that thiTi'ial Court failed to 8 A(S, J& VRKR, J CCCA No.322_2003 recognize a further payment of Rs. z}a,szg/- made by the Appellant/Defendant in full and final setrlemenr to Balaji Sai Constructions, a subcontractor of the Respondent/Plaintiff and disregarded a substantial counter-claim of Rs.2,30,174.41 paise made by the Appellant/Defendant. It was further contended that the 'trial Court failed to acknowledge that payments made by the Appellant/Defendant to Tirumala Earth Movers and Balaji Sai Constructions were made at the instance of the Respondent/plainti ff.

13. There is no dispute that defendant engaged the services of the plaintiff for completion of contract work reiateci to Container Corporation of India. In fact, initially the defendant assigned the work: of excavation of black cotton soil and disposal in the market to one IWs. A.lve Construction, which could not complete the task. Hence, the defendant was constrained to engage the plaintiff for completion of the works. which were left unperformed by IWs. Alve Construction. The rejoinder filed by the ptaintiff to the written statement of the defendant discloses that the plaintiff engaged the services of Balaji sai Cosntructions, Trimurthy Earthmovers and Tirumala Earthmovers in completion of the contract work assigned by the defendant. 9 AKS, J &VRKR, J CCCA No.322-2OO3

14. The totat claim of the plaintiff is Rs.l1,25,101.19 paise. On the other hand, the defendant not only refuted the total claim of the plaintiff but also set up a counter claim against the ptaintiff for Rs.2,31,164-41 paise. The contention of the defendant is that out of the claim made by the plaintiff, the defendant has already made payments of Rs.3,80,550/- and Rs.2,37,033/- to Sub contractors viz., Balaji Sai Constructions and Tirumala Earth Movers.

15. The claim of the plaintiff is that though the defendant was regular in making payments, the said payments were only part payments, as such, the plaintiff was not in a position to pay the amounts to the sub-contractors. Due to the pressure exerted by the sub-contractors, the plaintiff was constrained to address a letter on 05.03 .lgg7 to the defendant under Ex.Al5 requesting the defendant to remit the payments to sub-contractors. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that the sub-contractors of the plaintifffiled O.S.No.422 of 1997 on the f,rle of leamed V Assistant Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad against the ptaintiff and defendant for recovery of money. Thus, it is clear that though the services of sub- contractors were being engaged by the defendant through the plaintiff, necessary payments were not being made to them. It is pertinent to note that admittedly on l2.O3.lgg7 and 19.03.1997, the plaintiff addressed letters under Exs.Alg and A20 respectively to the,defendant requesting the 2,. .,/.' n t 10 AKS, J &VRKR, J CCCA No.322_2003 defendant not to rnake any payment to the sub-contractors. on 07.03. iggT the defendant replied to the plaintiff that the request of the plaintiff cannot be considered as the amount mentioned thereunder was not due. Having denied the payments to the sub-contractors, at the first instance and having received letters under Exs.Al9 and A20 from the plaintiff requesting the defendant not to make payments to the sub-contractors, the defendant is not supposed to make payments to the sub-contractors of piaintiif. The Trial court rightly observed in the impugned judgment that when the amounts were not payable to the plaintiff, the question of payment to the sub_ contractors of plaintiffdoes not arise. Even the DWI acinritted in his cross examination that he is not liable directly for the sub-contractors of the plaintiff' It is also to be noted that the defendant hatl nor placed a,,y credible material or evidence to establish that amounts were paid to the sub-contractors of the ptaintiff. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the defendant had paid amounts to the sub-contractors of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, amount paid by the defbndants, if any, to the sub-contractors of the plaintiff is not binding on rhe plaintiff fbr the reasons stated supra, especially in view of correspondence made b,v the plaintiff to the defendant under-Exs.Al9 and A20. 16' The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the Trial court failed to recognize that work -quantities, as per Ex.A3, u/ere to be daily 11 AKS,J&VRKR,J CCCA No.322-2AO3 recorded and certified by the Engineer-in-charge, which the Respondent/Plaintiff failed to do and the Trial Court also allegedly erred by not considering that payment, was contingent on joint measurement and approval by the Engineer-in-charge, as stipulated in Ex.A3 work order. It is further argued that the Trial Court failed to recognize that the Respondent/Plaintiff abandoned work by 07.03.1997 .making the later statement unreliable for a claim of Rs.9,50,000/-; there was no record of measurements taken other than the statement dated 17.05. 1997; Ex.A25 did not represent measurements taken during the actual work period and was not a daity record as per Ex.A3; Ex.A25 was created long after the work was abandoned, further questioning its validity. !

17. Admittedly, the plaintiff commenced work from 17.12.1996 and continued it till 07 .03.1997 . Even as per the version of the defendant, after commencement and during the course of execution of the work, the bills were released on the basis of the bills of the defendant being passed by CONCOR and the latter had appointed RITES which was responsible for measuring and checking the work actually performed by the plaintiff whether by itself or through its sub-contractors. The bills that were passed by CONCOR for the work done in favour of the defendant, were released in favour of the plaintiff on 04.03. 1997 and 17.03.1997. Admittedly, as on

07.03.1997, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.2,95,488.20 paise to the '- <'-- 12 AKS,J&VRKR,J CCCA No.322_2003 plaintiff. lvlerely because the praintiff abandoned the work from

07.03.1997, it cannot be a ground forthe defendant to deny the payments for the works already done by the plaintiff. There is no basis for the defendant to contend that Ex.A25 cannot be considered on the ground that the said document was createdlong after the abandonment of work by the plaintiff because even as per the version of the defendant, it made payments specifically Rs.1,97,033/- and Rs. 97,033/- even in the monrhs of Aprii and M"y, 1997 i.e.,long after the abandonment of work by the plaintiff. when the defendant is alleged to have been making payments even after the abandonment of work, there is no bar for the piaintiff in obtaining Ex.n25 having been certified by the site incharge of the defendant in the month of Muy, 1997 i.e., two months after the alleged abandonment of work by thc plaintiff. Hence, the above contentions of the leamed counsel fbr the defendant are untenable.

18. Further, the statement under Ex.A2s was preparerl by Mr. Rakesh Banway, Site In-charge of the defendant and he was authorized to approve the work done by the plaintiff. DWI admitted in his cross examinarion that Mr. Rakesh Banway, Site In charge of the defendant was authorized to certifu the statement. [n fact, ttre flaintiff prepared his claim statement under Ex.A26 based on Ex.A25. However, it is the specific contention of the defendant that Ex.A25 was created Iong after the work was abandoned. 13 AKS, J &VRKR, J CCCA No.322-2OO3 Thus, the defendant is questioning the validity of Ex.A25. As stated supra, Ex.A25 was alleged to have been prepared by Mr. Rakesh Banway, who is none other than site in charge of defendant. When the defendant is suspecting the validity and genuineness of Ex.A25, necessary steps ought to have been initiated by the defendant in examining Mr. Rakesh Banway to elicit the truth behind Ex.A25. Except making rigid assertions, no palpable evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant to suspect the genuineness of Ex.A25. !

19. It is the specific contention of the defendant that the plaintiff did not complete the work relating to dressing, levelling or dozing of the earth work, but he was paid excess amount which is required to be refunded. As per the own version of defendant, unless and until the bills were certified by the Engineer - in - chief, payrnents cannot be released. [n such circumstances, the defendant shall come forward to explain as to how excess amount was paid to the plaintiff. Except the bald averments, there is no substantial justification on behalf of the defendant in seeking refund of amount from the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendant categorically admitted that the total quantity of the work turned out by the plaintiff was quantified and made payment. On the contrary, even as per the own version of defendant, as on 07.03.1997, the defendant is still liable to pay Rs.2,95,488.20 paise to the plaintiff. Thus, the above contentions of 74 A]<S,J&VRKR,J CCCA No.322_2003 the defendant an; quite contradictory io each other apart irom creating any amount of suspicion on the version of the defendant. 20- As per the version of the defendant, though the plaintiff quoted dozer charges @ Rs.750 /- per hour, it was agreed to be reduced to Rs.600 l- per hour. As per the evidence of Dwl. the dozer charges were fixed at Rs.650/- per hour. However, in the cross examination, DWI admitted that dozer charges were Rs.750/- per hour was not altered by it while accepting the same. DWI fufther admitteci that Ex.Al7 bill submitted by the piaintiff was corrected by the site in-charge of the defendant i.e., Rakesh Banway and in it the dozer charges .,vere sho.*n at Rs.750l- pcr hour w.ithout corrections. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is no consistency in the version of defendant. [n Ex.At4 bill also it was mentioned that the plaintiff done the drain lift work on the Northern Side. The statemenr under Ex.Al7 was also certified by Mr. Rakesh Banway the site in charge of the defendant.. Thus, the plaintiff is not solely relying on Ex.A25 to substantiate its claim but also relying on Exs.Al4, A1 7 and Az5, which were well certified by Mr. Rakesh Banway, who is the capable person to certi$' the works done by the plaintiff even as per the own version of the defendant 15 AKS, J &VRKR' J CCCA No.322-2OO3

21. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the plaintiff did not maintain daily work sheet with the measurements' However' it is to be seen that the works done by the plaintiff were we[[ certified by the site in chargeofdefendarfiviz',Mr'RakeshBanway'Furthermore'eventhe defendant failed to produce any of its records to establish that the works done by the plaintiff were not in accordance with the measurement books' It is not the case of the defendant that for the works done by the plaintiff under Exs.Al4, A17 and A25 that were certified by Mr' Rakesh Banway' payments were made to the plaintiff'

22. Thus, the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff establishes the suit claim and also disproves the contentions of the defendant in claiming the amount under counter claim. The Triat Court categorically observed at page No.22 of the impugned judgment that absolutely there is no evidence by the defendant either for counter claim or its ptea with regard to payment made bY it to the Plaintiff' )

23.Theprincipalamountpayabletotheplaintiffwasdeterminedtobe Rs.9,56,006/..Theplaintiff,sclaimforZ[Yop.a.interestwasdeemed excessive and there was no agreement for it; instead' a reasonable interest of l2Yop.a. was awarded on ttre principat amount from 0t-03-1997' until /./ 15 AKS, J & WKN,,T CCCA No.322_roo3 , the date of filing the suit. Though the plaintiff claimed Rs. 71,25,i01.1g paise, the Trial Court awarded Rs.10,40, Sl4/-only. VII. CONCLUSION:

24. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Triar court after considering the orar and documentary evidence adduced on beharf of either sides, rightry decreed the suit partly in favour of the praintiff and dismissed the counter craim of the defendant entirely and thereby, we do not find any tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the triar court. Thus, the appear is devoid of ments and !iabl..: to be dismissed. VIII. RES ULT: 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. case, there shall be no order as to costs. In the circumstances of the As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII N OFFICER To,

1. The V Senior Civit Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRt BIMAL BHASKAR, Advocate [OeUC1 3. Two CD Copies l hl/166r AUl-f TDL Y*- q I r 3 0[[ 20.6 z. * Y \)() () :,, \1 Y * 2 DRAF HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.322 of 2003 DISMISSING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS 6@pqeiu ffi* I [ 34e0 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 322 OF 2003 Between: CCC Builders Merchants Pvt Ltd., Madras-600020 30,Karpagam Gardens, lst Main Road,Adayar,Madras-600020. l.C.D. Dpot at Sanathnagar, AND Unique Quality Construction,Contractors AND, Engineers and Developers MIGF- 24, Bharathnagar,Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500080. ...AppellanUDefendant ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 07lO4l2OO3 made in O.S.No.2094 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 arguments of SRI BIMAL BHASKAR, Advocate for the Appellant and none a This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CCCA be and hereby is dismissed; 2.Thatthereshallbenoorderastocostsinthisappeal. SD'. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFIC ER To,

1. The V Senior Civil Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad 2. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL w I \ HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 012025 \ DECREE CCCA.No.322 of 2003 DISMISSING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS ).1 coy(e^ .k-,