Gujarat High Court
Solanki Construction Through Prop vs State Of Gujarat on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2956 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=======================================
SOLANKI CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PROP.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================
Appearance:
MR KG SUKHWANI(871) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS ROSHNI PATEL APP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appellant is filed by the appellant - original
plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dhrangadhra in Special Civil Suit
No. 29 of 1996 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
filed by original plaintiff.
2. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 invited
the tenders from public at large for the work of construction of
Upaniyala - Moti Majethi Road by Hotmix Plant and pever
finisher, Taluka : Dasada. It is also the case of the appellant that
the estimated cost of the work was Rs.20,65,494.68 paise and
the tender of the appellant was accepted for an amount of
Rs.24,99,248.5 paise and the parties have entered into an
agreement at Exhibit 49. That the work order was issued on
08.07.1992 with a stipulated period of 12 months and the same
was completed on 07.07.1993, however, the work could not be
completed on 07.07.1993. The appellant deposited Rs.51,700/-
by way of FDR towards the security deposit at the time of
entering into the contract.
3. The appellant had filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 1996 in
the Civil Court, Dhrangadhra for recovery of security deposit, loss
of profit and amount of Rs.7,27, 657/- withheld. Learned Judge
has, after framing the issue at Exhibit 12 and hearing the
respective parties and considering the documentary as well as
oral evidence, dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Heard Mr.K. G. Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Ms.R. V. Acharya, learned counsel for respondent No.3
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
and Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1.
6. Mr.Sukhwani, learned counsel has submitted the same
facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has
submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly came to be
conclusion that the appellant is the guilty of breach of contract.
He has submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly relied upon
the oral evidence of respondent's witness at Exhibit 96, who has
no personal knowledge. He has submitted that the learned Judge
has not properly appreciated the fact that the liquidated
damages / compensation / penalty was illegally imposed on the
appellant. He has submitted that due to breach of contract on
the part of the respondents, the appellant had requested for
extension of the contract. He has submitted that the present
appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
7. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel has submitted that the
learned Judge has not committed any error of facts and law in
dismissing the suit filed by the appellant and, therefore, no
interference is required to be called for in the appeal. She has
submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be
dismissed.
8. This Court has considered the facts of the case and
material on record as well as submissions canvassed by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
counsel appearing for the respective parties. This Court has
perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Judge.
9. It appears from the material on record that the respondent
No.2 invited tenders for the work of construction of Upaniyala -
Moti Majethi Road, Taluka: Dasada and estimated cost of the
work was Rs.20,65,494.68 paise. It also appears from the
material on record that the tender of the appellant was accepted
for Rs.24,99,248.56 paise and thereafter, the work order came to
be issued with a stipulated period of twelve months. The
appellant had deposited some amount as security at the time of
entering into the contract. It also appears from the record that
the appellant had filed the aforesaid suit before the Civil Court
seeking recovery of security deposit, loss of profit and amount.
The learned Judge has, after hearing the respective parties and
considering the evidence, framed the issues and answered in
negative. That the learned Judge has, after considering the
evidence of the representative of the appellant at Exhibit 48
wherein in his cross-examination, he has accepted the fact which
goes to the route of the matter, come to the conclusion that the
reliefs as sought for by the appellant in the suit were not
accepted. The learned Judge, while dismissing the suit, has given
cogent and material reason on the basis of the documentary as
well as oral evidence in para - 12 and 13 of the impugned
judgment and order and also observed that the appellant has
failed to establish the case and it is an admitted fact that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
appellant has not completed the work within stipulated time. The
learned Judge has, while deciding the suit, has discussed the
relevant facts in paras - 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment and order.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, I
am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Judge
is in consonance with the facts and law and even the appellant
himself has, in his cross examination, admitted such aspects
and, therefore, the learned Judge not committed any error of
facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and
hence, the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is hereby
confirmed. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and
proceedings of the case to the concerned Court forthwith.
Pending civil application/s if any shall stand disposed of
forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
