The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARAVALA SREENIVASA RAO The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA .No.104 OF 2006 IUDGMENT: (['t'r I Ion'Lrle Sri fustice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal is filec{ aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 37.03.2004, passecl in O.S.No.694 of 1996 b1, the learned I Additional Senior CiviI Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabacl.

2. Hearcl thc lcarneci Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellants and Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent

3. It is the case of the a1'rpellants that the rerspondent was awarded contract for construction of Ujwala Ranga Office Complex at Gachibowli, at an estimated cost of Rs.70,00,000/ -, under agreement, claterl 31.05.1995. However, for various administrative reasons, the builcling permission and sanction plan could not be handed over to the resporrclent. While so, in anticipation of the civil work, the resp-rorrt{ent has dumped steel, sand and other materials requireci to accontplish the cor-rstruction task entrustetd to it. The \ \: respondent has spent an amount of Rs.3,14,000/- on materials - 2 AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No. I04 of 2006 However, on account of lack of funds, the construction work was cancelled by the appellants on 21.05.1996 and consequentl/, the agreement entered into with the respondent was also terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has approached the trial Court by filing the subject Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,05,300/- by way of damages. The trial Court, rtide impugned judgment and decree, dated 31,.03.2004, decreed the subject Suit in favour of respondent and directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs..14,09,645/ - with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 72% per annum from the date of Suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellants had contended that when no drawings and work orders to commence the work were issued to the respondent, the question of awarding damages and decreeing the subject Suit in favour of the 1 _) AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No. 104 of 2OO6 respondent would not arise. Aclmittedly, the respondent has spent only Rs.3,14,000/- for procuring the material for construction of the complex. Therefore, the responclent is not entitled to any relief beyond the said amount. Hence, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2004, and allow, the appeal

5. Learned counsel for the respondent had contended that appellant No.3-Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, has addressed a letter, dated 24.03.7996, to the respondent, and the same was marked as Ex.A12 before the trial Court. A perusal of the said letter clearly discloses that the respondent has spent Rs.3,14,000/ -. \ \ Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by directing the appellants to pay atleast the saicl amount along with interest at the rate of- 6% per annum.

6. This Court, having considerecl the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the trial Court was not justified in decreeing the subject Suit in favour of the respondent. The triat Court could not have directed the 4 AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No. 104 of 20O6 appellants to pay an amount of Rs.14,09,645/- to the respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the juclgment and decree, dated 31.03.2004, pasSed by the trial Court is modified by directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,14,000/-, which was admitted by appellant No.3 aide letter, dated 24.03.7996, markecl as Ex.AL2, to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 60/o per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of realization.

7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/. T.VIJAY KUMAR PUTY REGIS //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Dt. at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad(With records, if anY)

2. One CC to SRI ARAVALA SREENIVASA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies W ADK/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED i1010712025 ol/. lntr o s o() ;t i it01l ltffi r( !:, :! JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS AS.No.104 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE APPEA SUIT WITHOUT COSTS I0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 104 OF 2006 Between:

1. State of A.P. Panchayat raj Department, Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Build ings,

2. The District Collector, Hyderabad Rangareddy District. 3. The Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj (East Division) Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad AND ...Appellants/Defendants M/s Sagar Constructions, A partnership having its office At 10-97, SBI Colony, being rep.by lts Managing Partner A. Anji Reddy, S/o. A Linga Reddy, aged about 42years, occu: Contractor, R/o.H.No.10-97, SBI colony, Saroornagar, Rangareddy District. ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 31-03-2004 made in O.S.No.694 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, 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 GP FOR APPEALS, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRIARAVALA SREENIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the judgment and decree in O.S.No.694 of 1996 dated 31.03.2004, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad is modified directing the appellants to. pay an amount of Rs.3,14,000/- to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of realization;

2. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is disposed of; 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. T.VIJAY KUMAR PUTY REGISTRAR T i lecnoru oFFrcER /TRUE COPY// To,

1. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Dt. at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL V HIGH COURT DATED i1010712025 DECREE AS.No.104 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE APPEA SUIT WITHOUT COSTS o