* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.148/2010
% 16th February, 2012
MUNNA LAL (PROPRIETOR) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Subhash Chandra, Advocate.
versus
THE FPCC LTD. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 26.5.2009 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for recovery of moneys on account of having supplied labour/manpower to the respondent for its contract of pre-stressing work of Ganga Bridge at Allahabad Bypass.
2. Before the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff proved the quotation and work order as Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/B1 respectively. The appellant/plaintiff supplied labour during February, 2005 to November, RFA No.148 /2010 Page 1 of 3 2005 and during which period the respondent/defendant made a payment of ` 2,02,092.60/- as per the statement of payment filed and proved as Ex.PW1/E. As per the muster roll of the workers, a bill dated 17.11.2006, Ex.PW1/C for ` 7,56,615.63/- was raised, however, on subsequent request of the respondent/defendant for concession, a revised bill of lesser amount of ` 6,55,276.77/- was raised on 22.2.2007. The legal notice was proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/F.
3. In spite of the appellant/plaintiff proving his case, the trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation by giving the following reasons:-
"6. Though the plaintiff's evidence remains unrebutted, an appraisal of the documents adduced in evidence reflect that the manpower service rendered was from February'05 to November'05. The last payment made by the defendant was on 13.10.05. The only documents after this date are the plaintiff's bill Ex.PW1/C, their revised bill Ex.PW1/D, other than their legal notices.
7. There is nothing in these documents which acknowledges the liability so as to enhance the limitation for filing the present suit.
8. The services were provided up to November'05. The last payment was made in October'05. The suit was filed on 3.2.09. The claim of the plaintiff is therefore barred by time."
4. The aforesaid findings of the trial Court are clearly illegal and perverse. Once the respondent/defendant was exparte, and the appellant/plaintiff deposed that a revised bill as per the direction of the RFA No.148 /2010 Page 2 of 3 respondent/defendant was raised on 22.2.2007, surely, the suit which was filed on 3.2.2009 was therefore well within limitation. The trial Court has very surprisingly not discussed this admitted aspect and which otherwise finds mention in para 5 of the impugned judgment. The trial Court has therefore grossly erred in holding the suit to be barred by limitation.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted. Impugned judgment and decree dated 26.5.2009 is set aside. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of ` 5,54,523.63/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum simple pentente lite and future till payment is decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant. The appellant/plaintiff will also be entitled to costs of this appeal. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
6. A copy of the impugned judgment alongwith copy of today's judgment be sent to the Chairman of the Inspection Committee of the concerned Judicial Officer.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 16, 2012 Ne RFA No.148 /2010 Page 3 of 3