1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is at the instance of original defendant has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 361 of 1998 for recovery of Rs 46400/.
1.1 The case of the plaintiff is to the effect that the plaintiff was awarded contract for the work of 600 mm diameter cast iron pipe lines for Maktampur Filtration Plant to Agricultural Development farm. According to the work order the price of 21” diameter and 24” diameter ‘Bend and ‘Reducer’ was fixed at Rs 21,000/. The plaintiff has completed the work wherein three ‘Bend’ and ‘Reducer’ were installed on 3rd April 1997 and the work done by the plaintiff was got tested by defendant Nos. 1 and, 2 and in testing, work was found to be correct. As per the further case of the plaintiff, the defendants terminated the work order and thereafter the plaintiff was called upon to start the work which the plaintiff completed and placed the final bill for the total work of Rs 138,371/ and out of which the plaintiff was paid Rs 85080/ but the remaining amount of Rs 46400 was not paid and therefore the plaintiff was required to institute the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. The suit was resisted by the defendants by stating therein that the plaintiff has created false facts amount of Rs 21,000/ was fixed per piece of “Bend” and “ Reducer”, and the plaintiff is not entitled to get Rs 63,000/ for the work of “Bend” “Reducer” and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the said amount.
2. On appreciation of evidence available on record the trial court found that the plaintiff installed and connected of old pipe line by ‘Bend and ‘Reducer’ and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to payment for ‘Bend and Reducer’ calculated by the plaintiff on the basis of per piece and not of entire work of ‘Bend and ‘Reducer. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff was allowed and the plaintiff was held entitled for Rs 44,400/ as Rs 2,400/ was deducted on account of delayed work of the plaintiff. The recovery of the said amount was allowed by the Courts below with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
3. The decree passed by the trial court is confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 101/2007 filed by the Appellants Court and the Appellants are now before this Court.
4. The only question which was argued by learned advocate for the appellants was that the Courts below had failed to interpret and construe the quotation of the plaintiff for the work of ‘ Bend’ and ‘Reducer’. As per the submission made by Mr. Shah for the appellant the price quoted by the plaintiff in its quotation of Rs 21,000/ was for doing entire work of ‘Bend’ and ‘Reducer’ and not on the basis per piece work of ‘Bend and ‘Reducer’. Learned advocate for the appellant therefore urged that this Court may raise substantial question of law to the effect that :
(a) Whether Courts below were justified in accepting the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of per piece of work of ‘Bend’ and ‘ Reducer’ when condition No. 1 to 6 of the work order specifically provided that the entire work has to be carried out for Rs 21,000/.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the appellant has made available the copy of the quotation to the Court as also the copy of the work order. From the work order it appears that the amount to be paid by the defendants was for installation of each of ‘Bend and Reducer’. In fact from the clause No. 6 of the work order it clearly appears that the defendants had agreed to pay the amount of Rs 21,000/ separately for work of ‘ Bend and Reducer’ for the purpose of joining the pipelines. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had used more than one ‘Bend and Reducer’ and therefore as per the work order the plaintiff would be entitled to price of the work done of ‘ Bend and Reducer’ on per piece basis.
5. The Courts below have on the basis of interpretation of the quotation, the work order as also on the basis of oral evidence of plaintiff, which was not subject to cross examination by the defendants, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff having installed more than one ‘Bend and Reducer, would be entitled to have his claim passed by the defendants. On such finding of fact the suit is allowed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Judge. I do not find that any substantial questions of law has arisen for consideration of this Court. In view of the above the Second Appeal is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
In view of the order passed in the Second Appeal there is no order required to be passed in this Civil Application and, hence, this application stands disposed of.
(C.L.SONI, J.) mary