Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rsa No.262/2024 vs Partap Singh Chauhan on 9 May, 2025
2025:HHC:13579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No.262/2024.
Date of Decision: 09th May, 2025.
The Managing Director & Anr. .....Appellants.
Versus
Partap Singh Chauhan .....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Durga Singh Kainthla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
The Appellants, by filing this appeal under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the
judgement and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed by learned
District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 42-S/13 of 2022,
whereby Appeal filed by the Appellants against the Judgement
and Decree dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned Civil
Judge Court No.1, Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2016 was
partly allowed.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as "plaintiff"
and "defendants" in accordance with their status before the trial
Court. The facts leading up to the present appeal are that the
plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, was that a contract for
felling and conversion of 377 trees comprised in Lot No.5/2011-
12 (Rajgarh HL), including engraving, haulage of forest
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2025:HHC:13579
produce, carriage, and dispatch up to the roadside depot in
Forest Division Rajgarh, was awarded to him by the Himachal
Pradesh Forest Development Corporation, Shimla, through its
Divisional Manager, vide agreement dated 04.08.2011. Prior to
the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff deposited a sum of
₹50,000/- as security with defendants No. 3 and 4. The plaintiff
claimed to have executed the contract as per its terms and
conditions to the satisfaction of the said defendants. Upon
completion of the work, he submitted his bills to defendant No.
4 for payment, but an amount of ₹84,000/- was deducted as
extension fee, despite the fact that he had never sought any
extension of time for completing the work. Additionally, the
defendants No. 3 and 4 allegedly retained the security amount
of ₹50,000/- without any justification.
3. The plaintiff further contended that when he visited the
site after the assignment of work, he found that the trees to be
felled and converted were not bearing any hammer
or khudan marks, making them unidentifiable and rendering the
execution of the work practically impossible. He made
representations to the Divisional Manager, Forest Division,
Solan (D-4), pursuant to which a joint inspection was conducted
by a team of the Forest Department and the Forest
Development Corporation, leading to the re-enumeration of 377
trees. Only after this exercise could the plaintiff proceed with
the felling and conversion of the trees and dispatch the forest
2025:HHC:13579
produce to the roadside depot of defendants No. 3 and 5. The
plaintiff asserted that the defendants were not entitled to
deduct any amount towards delayed execution of the
agreement, as the delay was attributable to their failure to
properly mark the trees. Accordingly, he sought recovery of
₹1,34,000/- (₹84,000/- as extension fee and ₹50,000/- as
security) along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from
July 2014 till realization.
4. Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement
contesting the suit on preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, cause of action, valuation, and jurisdiction. On
merits, while admitting the execution of the agreement dated
04.08.2011, they denied the remaining allegations. They
contended that the plaintiff informed them about the non-
marking of trees only after six months from the date of
allotment of work. They asserted that there was a delay in the
completion of work by the plaintiff, and in terms of Clause 12(b)
of the agreement, they were entitled to deduct an extension fee
at the rate of 1% per month of the contract value for the
leftover work. Since the plaintiff failed to complete the work
within the stipulated time, the deduction was lawful. They
prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendants No. 1 and 2, namely the State of Himachal
Pradesh and the Secretary (Forest), did not file a separate
written statement but adopted the defence of defendants No. 3
2025:HHC:13579
and 4. In his replication, the plaintiff denied the allegation that
he informed the authorities about the non-marking of trees only
after six months. He reiterated that the work could not
commence on time due to the absence of hammer
or khudan marks on the trees, making them unidentifiable at
the site.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court
framed the following issues on 03.05.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
₹1,74,299/- along with future interest @ 16% per
annum from the date of institution of the suit till
the realization of the whole amount, as prayed
for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form, as alleged? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to
file the present suit, as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to court
with clean hands and has suppressed material
facts from this court, as alleged? OPD
5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued
for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as
alleged? OPD
6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try
and decide the present suit, as alleged? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own
act, conduct, deeds, admissions, omissions, and
acquiescence from filing the present suit, as
alleged? OPD
7. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing
their arguments, the learned trial court concluded that the
stipulated time period for completion of work could not be
adhered to by the plaintiff because the trees to be cut and
converted were not properly marked and identified by
defendants No. 3 and 4. The fault lay with the defendants, and
therefore, they were not entitled to retain any amount from the
plaintiff on account of delayed execution of the agreement.
2025:HHC:13579
Accordingly, the trial court decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the
plaintiff and the remaining issues against the defendants,
decreeing the suit for a sum of ₹1,71,299/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
8. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, defendants No.
3 and 4 had preferred a first appeal, contending that the trial
court failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct
perspective. They argued that the plaintiff did not comply with
the terms of the agreement within the stipulated time and
initiated work only after six months from the date of allotment,
raising the plea of unmarked trees belatedly. Despite this, the
defendants accommodated the plaintiff by getting the trees re-
enumerated. They asserted that, in terms of Clause 12(b) of the
agreement, they were entitled to deduct the extension fee from
the plaintiff's final bills on account of the delay attributable to
him.
9. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal of
defendants No.3 and 4. The decree passed by the trial court
was partly modified and the suit was decreed to the following
effects:-
(a) Plaintiff were held entitled to recover amount of
₹1,34,000/- with pre-suit interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from July 2014 till filing of suit i.e.
21.4.2016.
(b) The plaintiff was further held entitled to recover
the principal so adjudged [i.e. ₹1,34,000/- plus pre-
suit interest component as awarded vide (a) above],
with interest at the rate of 6 % from the date of suit
till realization.
(c) The amount of ₹50,000/- was held to be released
to the plaintiff towards security during pendency of
2025:HHC:13579
suit on 13.6.2016, which was ordered to be deducted
from the principal (as standing on that date for
further calculations)
(d) The suit was decreed against defendants No.3 and
10. Against the aforesaid modification in the judgement &
decree of the trial court no further appeal had been preferred by
the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree,
the defendant has filed this second appeal.
11. Perused the impugned judgment and heard counsels for
the parties.
12. Upon careful consideration of the material on record and
the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the two courts
below have concurrently and correctly held that while there was
no dispute regarding the allotment of work in 2011, the
defendant's own witness admitted that hammering and marking
of trees was done only on 20.10.2012, after which the plaintiff
commenced work in November 2012. The defendant's primary
contention that the work was not completed within the
stipulated time stands rebutted by the evidence on record,
which clearly establishes that the delay was attributable to the
defendant's failure to provide proper tree markings.
13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for
defendants No.3 and 4 regarding excessive pre-suit interest was
found to be reasonable and well-founded by the courts below. A
cumulative sum of Rs.1,34,000/- was retained by defendants
No.3 and 4 as extension fee and security. The plaintiff,
2025:HHC:13579
however, claimed a principal amount of Rs.1,71,299/- as on the
date of the suit by including interest calculated at 16% per
annum, as evident from para-No.7 of the plaint. Since the
agreement Ex.PW1/A did not stipulate any interest rate payable
on dues, the plaintiff was held to be entitled to interest only at a
reasonable rate on the amount found due by both the Courts. I
see no infirmity in the same.
14. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances,
there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial
question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the
appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
09th May, 2025
(T.B/Gaurav Rawat)
