High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P Through Collector v. Rafat Ali - FIRST APPEAL No. - 196 of 1978  RD-AH 15435 (12 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 1
First Appeal No. 196 of 1978
The U.P. State & others .......... Defendants/Appellants
Rafat Ali Khan .......... Plaintiff/Respondent
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant. No one appears for the respondents despite list being revised.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13.2.1978 and the consequential decree thereof passed by the District Judge in Original Suit No. 8 of 1977 (Rafat Ali Vs. The U.P. State and others).
According to the plaint allegations the tenders were invited for the construction of Block Development Office at Naraini, District Banda. The tender of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and he was awarded the contract for Rs.27,791.25 paise. The agreement was executed on 10.10.1973. On account of the some alteration in the type and design as specified, extra work to the tune of Rs.11,000/- had to be done. It is said that the plaintiff-respondent completed the contract but he was not paid the entire amount as per the final bill.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the above suit was instituted for the realization of the balance amount of Rs.16,627.72 paise.
The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants and it was contended that the final bill raised by the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 38,605/- was not correct. The entries contained in the measurement book were not final as they have not been approved by the Executive Engineer.
The courts below by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.2.1978 decreed the suit for the recovery of the above amount with 6% interest pendentilite and future till the date of payment.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order and consequential decree passed by the Courts below the defendants-appellants have preferred this appeal.
Learned Standing counsel has argued that the court below has erred in placing upon exhibit-31 in holding that some extra work was got done by the plaintiff-respondent.
It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent had carried out the work which was assigned under the contract in full, though on behalf of the defendants-appellants it has been contended that the work so done was not upto the standard and as per the specification. From the perusal of the statement of the Executive Engineer Deena Nath DW-1, it is apparent that some deviation from the original work was made and on account of open foundation some extra work was got done. He also stated that according to the measurement book the work was completed on 30.6.1974. However, he was unable to say that extra expenditure of Rs.11,000/- was incurred by the plaintiff-respondent on the additional work so done. He admitted that initially the work was of the lower amount but on account of additional work the bill for Rs.38,605/- was raised but whether the said amount claimed by the plaintiff-respondent is correct or not he is unable to say anything about it. Thus, from the above statement of the Executive Engineer one thing is certain that the additional work was got done and all the work was completed by the plaintiff-respondent. In the view of the statement of the Executive Engineer exhibit 31 is not at all material.
The work done by the plaintiff-respondent was entered in the measurement book. The entries in the measurement book were made by the assistant engineer after due measurement of the work done by the plaintiff-respondents. The final bill was raised by the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of the entries contained in the measurement book. There is nothing on record to show that entries so made in the measurement book are required to be approved by the Executive Engineer. In fact there is no evidence even to show that the entries so made have not been approved. Moreover, the measurement book is maintained and is kept in custody of the respondents and their officers and as such on account of the cuttings and over-writings in the entries made in the measurement book it cannot be said that the final bill raised by the plaintiff-respondent is incorrect. Besides, all the entries made in the measurement book have also been proved and corroborated by other evidence on record. There was no specific direction to the assistant engineer at any point of time to make measurement of the work done again and to revise the entries in the measurement book. The directions of the Executive Engineer for re-measurement were of general nature and were not intended to be applied to the work done by the plaintiff-respondent.
In view of the above, the court below has rightly held that the final bill as per measurement book No. L-7 to the tune of Rs. 38,605/- is correct and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to the balance amount.
Accordingly the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 13.2.1978 passed by the Court below decreeing the Original Suit No. 8 of 1977 (Rafat Ali Vs. The U.P. State and others) is upheld. No orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.