High Court
Case Details
RSA-2767-2025 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 129 (cid:1) Municipal Comm Committee Jhajjar RSA-2767 Date of De 2767-2025 (O&M) e of Decision:27.08.2025 ... Appellant Gordhan Dass an ass and others (cid:1) ... Respondents(cid:1) Versus (cid:1) CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate Present: Mr. for the appellant. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendant No.1 is the appellant The pellant before this Court challenging t ging the judgment and de nd decree dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned trial Court decreei ecreeing the suit for recov
Legal Reasoning
r recovery filed by the plaintiff-respon respondent No.1 and the judgment dat ent dated 26.05.2025 pass passed by the learned 1st Appella ppellate Court vide which the appe e appeal preferred by them y them against the aforesaid judgmen gment and decree passed by the learn e learned trial Court, has b , has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are Succ se are that the plaintiff-respondent No ent No.1, an electric contr contractor with MC Jhajjar, was en as engaged by the appellant–defenda efendant No.1 to execute ecute electrical work at the District trict Sports Parishad, Nehru Stadiu Stadium, Jhajjar, which he ich he completed in June 2015 at a co at a cost of Rs.2,58,491/-. The bill rais ill raised by the plaintiff- ntiff-respondent No.1 was duly verifie verified by the Additional Sub-Divisi Division Engineer (Electr (Electrical), Panchayati Raj, Rohtak, ohtak, but the payment was withhe withheld despite repeated peated requests. On 31.08.2016, the 6, the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajj , Jhajjar, constituted a f on a four-member committee on the plaintiff-respondent No.1 No.1’s representation, w tion, which found the he is entitled to tled to the said amount and directed th cted that PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2767-2025 2025 (O&M) -2- appellant–defend defendant No.1 make the payment. I ent. In pursuance, appellant–defenda efendant No.1 sought fun ht funds from defendant No.2, but t , but the latter failed to do the need needful without any jus ny justification. Consequently, the the defendants remained jointly a ntly and severally liable to iable to pay the sum of Rs.2,58,491/- -, which along with accrued inter d interest @ 12% per annu r annum from July 2015 amounted to ted to Rs.3,25,697/- at the time of fili of filing the suit. Despite espite service of legal notice dated 14 ated 14.07.2017, no payment was mad as made, leading to institu institution of the present suit. 3. Upon notice of the suit, appellant– Upo –defendant No.1 appeared and fil and filed written statemen tement taking objection that it had ne had never asked the plaintiff-responde spondent No.1 to undertak dertake the electrical work of District istrict Sports Parishad at Nehru Stadiu Stadium, Jhajjar. It was pl was pleaded that the said premises do ses do not belong to appellant–defenda efendant No.1, and therefo therefore, there was no occasion for it for it to engage the plaintiff-responde spondent No.1 for such w uch work. It was further averred that d that the appellant–defendant No.1 h No.1 has no concern wha n whatsoever with the work allege allegedly carried out by the plainti plaintiff- respondent No.1 t No.1 at the said venue, and that the at the plaintiff-respondent No.1 neith 1 neither submitted any bi any bill nor made any representation tation before its office for release of t se of the claimed amount ount of Rs.2,58,491/-, as the bill in ill in question did not pertain to it. A to it. All other averments ments of the plaint were specifica ecifically denied and dismissal of t l of the suit was prayed ayed for. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned t On t rned trial Court had framed as many many as two issues inclu including relief. On appreciation iation of oral as well as documenta mentary evidence produce roduced before it, the learned trial Cou ial Court decreed the suit of the plainti plaintiff- respondent No.1a t No.1and the appeal preferred by the by the defendants was also dismissed issed by the learned 1st Ap Appellate Court. Hence, the regul regular second appeal. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2767-2025 2025 (O&M) -3- 5. Learned counsel for the appellan Lear pellant, inter alia, contends that t that the plaintiff-respond spondent No.1’s own witnesses, nam s, namely PW-2, Light Inspector, a ctor, and PW-3, Sh. Deve . Devender Verma, Storekeeper, Dis r, District Sports Office, Jhajjar, ha jar, have categorically adm lly admitted in their depositions that n that no work was executed by plainti plaintiff- respondent No.1 t No.1 for the appellant and that the t the appellant had no liability towar towards him. Further, bo er, both the learned Courts below c low committed error in placing hea g heavy reliance upon Ex on Exhibit P-4, the letter dated 30.01 30.01.2017 allegedly issued by the th the then Secretary, Munic Municipal Council, Jhajjar, which, ev ich, even if taken to be correct, does n does not indicate that the at the plaintiff-respondent No.1 ha o.1 had undertaken the work on t on the instructions of or of or for the benefit of the appellant ellant-defendant No.1. It is further urg er urged that the finding inding recorded by the learned Cou ourts below, to the effect that t that the appellant-defend efendant No.1 had not disputed the ex the execution of work or the bills rais lls raised by the plaintiff intiff-respondent No.1, is factually i ally incorrect inasmuch as the writt e written statement filed b filed by the appellant contains a categ categorical and specific denial of bo of both. Learned counsel ounsel also submits that there was a was admittedly no written contract ntract or contemporaneous aneous record evidencing any engag engagement of the plaintiff-responde spondent No.1 by the appe e appellant-defendant No.1 for carryin carrying out the alleged work at Distr t District Sports Parishad, rishad, Nehru Stadium, Jhajjar, and r, and, in the absence of any coge cogent evidence, fasten fastening liability upon the appell appellant-defendant No.1 was who wholly unjustified. 6. Having heard learned counsel for t Hav l for the appellant-defendant No.1, th o.1, this Court finds no s no force in the arguments advan advanced by learned counsel for t for the appellant. Admit Admittedly, that the plaintiff-respond spondent No.1 had specifically plead pleaded and duly proved roved execution of electrical work a ork at District Sports Parishad, Neh d, Nehru Stadium, Jhajjar, hajjar, at the instance of appellant-de defendant No.1. It is the case of t se of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2767-2025 2025 (O&M) -4- plaintiff-respond spondent No.1 that in affixing and re and repairing electrical items at the the said premises he had e had spent a sum of Rs.2,58,491/ ,491/-, but despite raising the bill, bill, no payment was ma as made. On the plaintiff-respondent ndent No.1’s representation, the Depu e Deputy Commissioner, J ner, Jhajjar, vide order dated 31.0 31.08.2016, constituted a committ mmittee headed by SDO ( SDO (Civil), Jhajjar with DSO, Jhajja , Jhajjar, Secretary, MC Jhajjar, and M and ME, MC Jhajjar as m r as members, which, after due cons e consideration, found the claim of t m of the plaintiff genuine nuine and directed that the amount b ount be deposited by defendant No.2 No.2 in the office of ap of appellant-defendant No.1 and th and thereafter released to the plaint plaintiff through appellan pellant-defendant No.1. Further, the r, the testimony of PW-3, Storekeep rekeeper, District Sports O orts Office, Jhajjar, read with the resol e resolution of the committee constitut nstituted by the Deputy Co uty Commissioner, Jhajjar on 31.08.2 08.2016, as well as the communicati unication dated 30.01.2017 1.2017 (Ex.P-4), clearly establish that h that such works and payments were s were to be routed throug through agencies like the Municipal C cipal Committee and that in the prese e present case also, the am the amount payable to the plaintiff-res respondentNo.1 was to be disburs isbursed through appellan pellant-defendant No.1. These circum circumstances, taken cumulatively, lea ly, leave no doubt that the hat the work was carried out under the er the aegis of appellant-defendant No ant No.1 and the liability t ith it. bility to ensure payment rested with it. 7. Therefore, concurrent conclusions Ther sions recorded by the learned Cou d Courts below are firml firmly supported by the pleadings, dings, oral evidence and documenta mentary record, including luding the verification of the bill an ill and the resolution of the compete ompetent committee. The . The mere fact that there was no s no formal contract, or that appella ppellant- defendant No.1 No.1 raised denials in its written ritten statement, cannot outweigh t eigh the categorical findin l findings of the committee and the su the supporting material on record. T ord. The approach adopte adopted by the learned Courts belo s below suffers from no perversity ersity or PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2767-2025 2025 (O&M) -5- illegality, and th and the liability of appellant-defend defendant No.1 towards the plainti plaintiff- respondent No.1 t No.1 stands duly established. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In v and circumstances, this Court does n does not find any merit merit in the arguments raised by le by learned counsel for the appella llant- defendant No.1, No.1, much less, no substantial questi question of law arises for consideratio deration. Consequently, th tly, the concurrent finding rendered b ered by both the Courts below is uphe is upheld and the instant re missed. tant regular second appeal is dismissed 9. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of. , 2025 August 27, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh