Delhi High Court
Munna Lal (Proprietor) vs The Fpcc Ltd. on 16 February, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* 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,
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
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
