Gauhati High Court
M/S. Bakshish Enterprises And Anr vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 3 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010269852017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh )
Case No:CRP(I/O) 83/2017
M/S. Bakshish Enterprises and Anr.
A Proprietorship Firm Having its Office and Principle Place of
Business at Ram Kumar Plaza, K.C. Das Road, Chatribari,
Guwahati-8 and is represented by its Proprietor Shri Daljit
Singh.
................................petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Assam and 3 Ors.
Rep. by The Commissioner And Secretary, Water Resources
Department., Dispur, Guwahati-6
...............................respondent
:: BEFORE ::
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy.
For the Respondent : Mr. B. Goswami, Additional
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate General.
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2022
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 03.11.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.D.
Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Assam.
2. The present petitioners as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 416/2013
for a declaration and realization of money. The declaration was to the effect that
the plaintiffs have completed a work contracts pursuant to work orders dated in
respect of 09.01.2009, 12.01.2009, 28.08.2009 and there is no balance work
left. A further declaration was that the letter dated 06.02.2010 relating to work
order dated 12.01.2009, cancellation of work order against the plaintiff, if any
cancelling work orders dated 09.01.2009 and 28.05.2009, are illegal, null and
void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
3. The defendants took a stand that the plaintiff did not complete the work
and the plaintiff has already been paid its due for the part of work, which has
been executed by it. It was also a stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs
executed only a portion of the works allotted to them and they did not resume
the work in spite of several requests and issuing several notices and the balance
Page No.# 3/4
work has been withdrawn and the same was completed by the defendants
engaging other contractor at a higher rate considering the urgency of the work
in question.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff had filed an application under
Section 30 of the CPC read with Order XI Rule 14 and 15 of the CPC praying for
calling certain documents.
5. While considering such application, the learned Court below allowed the
other documents except the documents pertaining to the contractor who
allegedly completed the work namely Ashoke Jain, including bills and
measurement book etc. Being aggrieved the present application is filed.
6. The ground of rejection of such document was that the said contractor
namely Ashoke Jain is not a party and therefore, the documents belonging to
Mr. Jain cannot be allowed to be given to the plaintiffs.
7. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel Submits that the said documents are very vital as a
dispute has arisen whether the plaintiffs had already executed the entire work
or the said Ashoke Jain had completed the work inasmuch as it is a case of the
plaintiff that, in fact the said Ashoke Jain has not executed any work.
8. Without going into such dispute, the fact remains that Ashoke Jain is not a
party to the suit and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly not called
Page No.# 4/4
for the bills submitted by said Contractor. However, the Measurement book
relating to the alleged work executed by the said contractor is a document
belongs to the State authority and therefore, the learned Court below could not
have held that the MBs belongs to the contractor and therefore, such
documents, the petitioner is not entitled. Further, as the case projected is that
the plaintiff gas executed and completed the work, comparison of both the MBS
may help the learned court below in coming into a just decision. For the
aforesaid reason and backdrop, this Court is also of the considered opinion that
if the MB as sought for is called, the same will also not prejudice the interest of
the other contractor.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the State defendant shall produce the
measurement book relating to the work executed by the subsequent contractor
before the learned Court below.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision petition stands
allowed. The earlier stay order if any passed stands vacated accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
