Gujarat High Court
Shankerbhai Karshandas Patel vs District Panchayat on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SHANKERBHAI KARSHANDAS PATEL
Versus
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KG SUKHWANI(871) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007 passed by the 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter be referred to as the "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1997 whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the said suit and directed the original plaintiff to recover the amount of Rs.5,52,044.88 from the original defendant with 6% interest.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant, District Panchayat, Mehsana, issued a tender for the Sariyad Goliwada Road, in which the appellant was the successful bidder and subsequently entered into an agreement with the respondent, the original plaintiff. The tender amount was Rs. 8,54,081.17. In 1992, the respondent issued the work order and handed over the site. The work was to be completed within six months from 4.2.1992. The appellant completed work worth Rs. 1,56,507.76 up to 27.5.1993, after which the appellant stopped working at the site. Consequently, the respondent, original plaintiff, issued various communications instructing the appellant to complete the work.
2.1 In response, on 10.11.1994, the present appellant gave a reply undertaking that the work would be completed between 17.11.1994 and February 1995, as per the agreement. However, the work was not completed. Consequently, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Patan, issued a notice stating that the work remained incomplete. The opponent-original plaintiff then passed a resolution, bearing number 408 dated 25.4.1995, deciding to recover the agreement amount from the appellant, original defendant, as the appellant had not Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined paid the agreed cost along with other charges. Following this, the plaintiff-opponent filed a civil suit before the concerned court, praying for recovery of Rs. 5,52,044.88 towards damages under various heads mentioned in the plaint. Upon receiving the summons, the respondent appeared before the court, filed a written statement at Exhibit 13, denied all averments made in the plaint, and also disputed the recoverable amount.
2.2 After considering the pleadings of both parties, the court framed issues at Exhibit 14 (page 61 of the paper book). The plaintiff produced documentary evidence and examined a witness, namely Amrutlal Prabhudas Patel, Deputy Executive Engineer of the District Panchayat, Mehsana, at Exhibit 43. He was thoroughly cross- examined by the appellant, who put forward various suggestions, all of which were denied by the witness.
2.3 On behalf of the appellant-original defendant, he deposed at Exhibit 55 and was thoroughly cross-examined by the plaintiff. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, and hearing the arguments advanced, the trial court addressed all the issues and gave detailed findings. The appellant admitted that up to 27.5.1993, only 18.32% of the total work had been completed and that he had not fulfilled the work as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. Regarding issues numbered 4, 5, 6, and 8, the trial court Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined provided detailed reasoning and decided all four issues jointly, as they were interdependent. Consequently, all these issues were decided in favor of the present opponent-original plaintiff. As to the question of limitation, after considering all relevant details, the trial court concluded that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act. Ultimately, the trial court recorded findings on all issues and partly allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007, directing the appellant-original defendant to pay Rs. 5,52,044.88 along with 6% interest.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant-original defendant has preferred present appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
4. Mr. Sukwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original defendant, vehemently argued and submitted that the trial court, without properly verifying the documentary and oral evidence in its true and proper spirit, passed the impugned judgment and decree directing the appellant to pay damages to the respondent- original plaintiff. He has further submitted that the trial Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined court exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating the evidence led before it, which was beyond the powers vested in the court and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is illegal, unjust and not in consonance with the settled legal principle.
4.1 Mr. Sukhwani, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that time was the essence of the contract and that the contract had been terminated and therefore, there was no question of paying damages. He has also argued that no breach was committed by the appellant, and hence, there is no basis for awarding damages to the respondent- original plaintiff. He urges before the Court that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is erroneous, illegal, and unjust, and thus the same may be quashed and set aside, and the appeal may be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
5. On the other hand, Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-District Panchayat, strongly opposed the present appeal. He contended that the appellant failed to perform according to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract agreement and abandoned the work. He has submitted that as a result, the respondent-plaintiff incurred a substantial loss and had to issue another contract to complete the work, Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined paying an additional amount to the subsequent contractor. He has submitted that after completing all formalities and issuing a legal last notice to the appellant, who failed to make any payment towards the damages, the respondent instituted the suit for recovery of damages. He has submitted that after considering all relevant aspects, the trial court rightly allowed the suit in part and directed the appellant to pay damages amounting to Rs. 5,52,044.88, along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the suit until final realization. He has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
5.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent, also contended that after evaluating both documentary and oral evidence, the court gave detailed findings and addressed all contentions. Therefore, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court should be confirmed.
5.2 It is further contended that the court framed the issues based on the pleadings of both parties and decided them after careful consideration and conclusions. Therefore, the trial court rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. Learned counsel for the respondent Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined urges before the Court that present appeal may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree may be confirmed.
CONCLUSION
6. I have gone through the relevant and documents produced on record. I have also perused and examined the record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
7. After close scrutiny of the record, the issues arising for consideration before this Court are: whether the trial court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and decree awarding damages to the opponent- original plaintiff; whether the trial court erred in interpreting and appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence in passing the impugned judgment and decree; and whether the appellant is liable for breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract, thereby entitling the original plaintiff to compensation for the damages.
8. After going through the record and proceedings and perusing the same, I am of the opinion that the trial court, after evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined impugned judgment and decree.
9. It is an admitted fact that the work was awarded to the appellant, who was the successful bidder, and they entered into an agreement on 3.2.1992, which was executed and signed by both parties on 4.2.1992. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the appellant was required to complete the work within six months from the date of handing over possession of the site. However, although the site was handed over immediately, the work was not completed within six months. On the contrary, as admitted by the appellant in the oral evidence, they had completed only 18.32% of the work.
10. Even thereafter, time and again, the appellant was served with notices and communications by the respondent-original plaintiff, but the work remained incomplete up to 1994. Although the appellant undertook to complete the work before February 1995, the work was not completed even as per that undertaking. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the appellant was in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and consequently held him responsible for the damages as calculated by the trial court.
11. Further, evidence on record shows that the work was subsequently completed through another contractor, Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined resulting in a substantial loss to the respondent. Relevant documentary evidence was produced, and this fact was also established through the oral evidence of witnesses. Thus, the trial court rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the contention raised by Mr. Sukhwani, learned counsel for the appellant. After examining all the issues framed and dealt with by the trial court in detail, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the trial court.
12. In view of the above, present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007 passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1997 is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 00:14:10 IST 2025