Gujarat High Court
Stateo Of Gujarat vs Vijaysinh G Solanki on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1318 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================
STATEO OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
VIJAYSINH G SOLANKI
==========================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants - original defendants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Civil Court, Valsad [hereinafter be referred to as "the trial Court"] in Special Civil Suit No. 113 of 1990 whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the suit.
2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 2.1 That the State of Gujarat had invited tenders for the work of construction of Fish Shed Farm at Palan Taluka Valsad, which came to be published by the appellants - original defendants and the tender of the respondent was accepted and agreement was executed between the parties and, thereafter, as per the agreement, the work order was issued. That as per the work order, the respondent - original plaintiff was required to commence the work from 17.05.1985 and the same was required to be completed on or before 16.11.1986 i.e. within a period of 18 months. As per the case of the respondent, according to the agreement and as per PWD Manual and departmental instructions and rules framed thereunder, the required instructions and guidelines for the work was not provided to the plaintiff and, therefore, the work was delayed and suffered loss and there was irregular and non-
supplying of material shown in Schedule A, which was to be supplied by the defendants in time. That due to change in design of overhead water tank and C.C. Channel lining and in not supplying the relevant instructions and material and even the Fish Shed Farm was to be constructed in the tank where the water got dry only in the month of May every year; as also the water by percolation from the canal flows through the site where fish ponds was to be constructed. That the provision for de-watering the place where fish ponds was to be constructed was made in the estimate, but the defendants had not provided such facility and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to incur the expenditure for de-watering every year. That the payment for the items done in the manner was not made properly which was to be paid as per rules by the defendants and due to said reason and other reasons the plaintiff could not complete the work in stipulated time and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to seek extension Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined from time to time which was recommended by the defendants and ultimately the work was completed on 25.06.1989 and final bill was paid on 26.12.1989.
2.2 It is alleged that the plaintiff had incurred extra expenditure for completion of the work which put into heavy losses and damages and other due and legitimate payment and final bill paid did not represent correct payment and hence, the plaintiff has accepted the bill under protest of the defendants.
2.3 The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.7,18,086/- along with interest from the date of the suit till realization. The trial Court has, after considering the pleadings, determined the following issues at Exhibit 20.
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he could not complete the disputed work within stipulated period due to breaches committed by the defendants?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover Rs.7,18,086/- from the defendants as alleged in para 11 to 16 of the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get interest.
If yes, at what rate?
(4) What is due to the plaintiff?
(5) What order and decree?
2.4 The trial Court has answered the aforesaid issues accordingly.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
2.5 The trial Court, after considering the submissions of both the
sides and considering the documentary evidence, has partly allowed the suit.
3. Heard Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.Chirag Patel, learned counsel for the respondent at length. Perused the material placed on record.
4. Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the trial Court has awarded the amount for eight claims, the details of which as under:-
Claim No.1 On account of over head and over stay Rs.96,980.00 Claim No.2 On account pf price rise....... Rs.1,61,845.00 Claim No.3 On account of loss of profit on saving Rs.49,522.20 due to change in plan and in calculation mistake in estimate....
Claim No.4 On account of change in plan beyond Nil the scope of contract agreement...
Claim No.5 On account of payment not done in Rs.2,49,739.00 manner to be paid as per rules and regulations....
Claim No.6 On account of work done but not Rs.29,752.37 measured and paid for..
Claim No.7 On account of time limit deposit... Rs.5,500.00 Claim No.8 On account of interest charge on above Nil claim..
Total Rs. Rs.5,94,610.20
4.1 Ms.Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
submitted that without considering the documentary evidence produced on the part of the appellants in its entirety has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and award. She has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error by exercising the jurisdiction which is not vested in it and in consistence plea by the plaintiff which resulted into the miscarriage of justice. She has submitted that the plaintiff has not completed the work in time as per the agreement more particularly clause 2 of the agreement, which aspect has not been considered by the trial Court, while deciding the suit. She has submitted that the work order was issued on 29.04.1985 for construction of Fish Shed Farm by the appellants and though the respondent was to commence the work and to complete the same by 16.11.1986, however, the respondent has failed to complete the work within stipulated time. She has submitted that the trial Court has held in the impugned judgment and decree that the respondent failed to maintain the progress work as per clause 2 of the tender agreement, in fact, the appellants have issued the notice to the respondent to complete the work within stipulated time. She has submitted that the trial Court has not considered the legal aspect that the time limit was given till March 1986 to complete the work and there was sufficient time to complete the work of the over head tank, however, the same has not been done by the respondent. She has submitted that it is the duty of the respondent to see that the work was required to be completed in time and even the appellants have paid the amount as per the agreement, but that aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Ms.Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to clause 14 of the agreement and has submitted that the Engineer in charge had the power to alter / add to the original specifications and drawings, despite being given requirements, the Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined respondent failed to execute the work in time and as per Schedule A, all requirements, design and drawings were provided within time. She has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr.Chirag Patel, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment and decree. He has submitted that tender of the respondent was accepted and work order was issued on 29.04.1985 and the respondent has deposited amount of security and, thereafter, entered into agreement. He has submitted that as per the agreement, the respondent has to start the work from 17.05.1985 and complete the same on or before 16.11.1986 i.e. within 18 months, however, the appellants have not provided proper guideline and material in time, the delay occurred in completion of the work and the regular payment of the work was also not made in time. He has submitted that the respondent has made extra work in addition to the work which was mentioned in the agreement and, therefore, he is entitled to get additional amount of work.. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just and proper and hence no interference is required to be called for. He has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
5.1 Mr.Patel, learned counsel has submitted that the work contract was completed finally on 25.06.1989 and final bill was paid on 26.12.1989 which was received by the respondent under protest. He has submitted that the pond was full of water and for de-watering the Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined pond, pump was not provided by the appellant and the designs of the work contract were not provided in time and revised designs of the overhead tank were lastly given on 15.11.1988. He has submitted that as per schedule - A of the tender, materials including cement and iron rods of 20 and 22 mm were not supplied in time which is against the government circular dated 05.05.1981. He has submitted that because of damages in the canal near the pond there was leakage of water in the canal and the water was coming into the pond due to which leakage the pond was overflowed with the leaked water from the canal and it was difficult to carry out with overflowed water in the pond. He has also submitted that the respondent was deprived of payment for work done qua C.C. 1:3:6, it was an extra work and decision of doing the work was given to respondent on 08.02.1989 and same was admitted by witness Abdul Rasid Masidbhai Qureshi and the appellant had changed the work of C.C. 1:3:6 lining channel and instructed to carry out PVC pipeline and same was discussed in a meeting with Deputy Executive Engineer and demanded payment of work.
5.2 Mr.Patel, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Bombay Housing Board (Now the Maharashtra Housing Board) Vs. M/s. Karbhase Naik and Co., Solapur, AIR 1975 SC 763 (paras 20 and 21);
(2) M/s. Hind Construction Contractors Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 720 (paras 8 and 10);
(3) Mcdermott International INC Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd and Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined others, (2006) 11 SCC 181 (paras 96, 97, 98, 103, 106, 109,
110);
(4) MSK Projects India (JV) Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan;
(5) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Tata Communications Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 573 (para 9);
(6) M/s. Aries and Aries Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, AIR 2017 SC 1897 (para 13 and 14);
5.3 Lastly Mr.Patel, learned counsel has urged that the Court may consider the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions and dismiss the present appeal and confirm the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court.
6. However, learned counsel for the appellant has objected so far as the rate of interest is concerned, since it was a contractual agreement executed by and between the parties, commercial rate of interest, cannot be awarded and the trial Court has committed a serious error in awarding interest at the rate of 15%.
7. It is the contention on the part of the appellants that the trial Court has awarded the amount for eight claims and without considering the documentary evidence the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree. On perusal of the reasoning and finding recorded by the trial Court, it appears that the said contention raised on the part of the appellants is not just and proper. It also appears that the trial Court has, after dealing with the issues in detail Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined and examining the documentary evidence produced by both the sides, passed the judgment and decree and awarded the compensation. It reveals from the record that the appellants have committed the breach of contract in not handing over the site of the work within stipulated time and even the material was also not supplied in time and, therefore, as per conditions stipulated in the agreement, the respondent was unable to complete the work within the stipulated time. Even though, the respondent has done extra work in addition to the work which was mentioned in the agreement and, therefore, he is entitled to get additional amount of work. So far as the price escalation is concerned, the trial Court has rightly considered the price because the delay occurred on the part of the appellants and almost 13 years were consumed to conclude the work and, therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances and considering the documentary evidence, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree, which is just and proper. Even the trial Court has considered the oral evidence of both the sides and some relevant abstract was also made a part of the judgment and decree.
8. I have gone through the material available on record and examined the relevant aspects of the matter and perused the impugned judgment and decree and the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. I find that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment and decree and no any illegality and infirmity is found therein. So far as the quantum is concerned, I am of the opinion that there is no interference is required to be called for. So far as the contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader with Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1318/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined regard to the interest at the rate of 15% is concerned, the same is on higher side and, therefore, interference is required to be called for only for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest. Therefore, I am of the opinion that 9% interest is just and proper to satisfy the cause because the contract was for 1985-1986 and at the prevailing time, the rate of interest was maximum 9% and considering the period which was consumed and considering the fact that in the present proceedings the time which was spent, the interest is required to be reduced from 15% to 9%.
9. In above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part. The rate of interest is reduced from 15% to 9%. Except the rate of interest, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. The appellants shall provide proper calculation to the concerned trial Court and if the appellants have deposited the amount awarded by the trial Court along with the interest at the rate of 15% then the appellants are entitled to get the refund difference of 6% interest as the same is reduced from 15% to 9%. The concerned trial Court shall refund the differential amount to the appellants and after deducting the said amount the remaining amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant after following due procedure and after verifying bank details of the claimant. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Pending civil applications shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 04:09:43 IST 2025