Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rsa No.263/2024 vs Kuldeep Chauhan on 9 May, 2025
2025:HHC:13579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No.263/2024.
Date of Decision: 09th May, 2025.
The Managing Director & Anr. .....Appellants.
Versus
Kuldeep 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 Appellant, 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 District
Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 43-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 in Civil Suit No. 53/1 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, is that a contract for
felling and conversion of 532 trees comprised in Lot No.5/2012-
13 (Rajgarh HL), engraving and haulage of forest produce,
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2025:HHC:13579
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 the Divisional
Manager, vide agreement dated 10.2.2012. The plaintiff
executed the contract as per its terms and conditions to the
satisfaction of defendants No.3 and 4. Upon completion of the
work, he submitted his bills to defendant No.4 for payment, but
an amount of ₹39,094/- was deducted as "extension fee,"
despite the plaintiff never having applied for an extension of
time to complete the work.
3. The plaintiff contends that when he visited the site after
being assigned the work, he found that the trees to be felled
and converted were not marked with 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), following
which a joint inspection was conducted by a team from the
Forest Department and the Forest Development Corporation,
and the trees were re-enumerated. Only after this was the
plaintiff able to fell and convert the trees and transport the
forest produce to the roadside depot. The plaintiff argues that
the defendants were not entitled to deduct any amount for
delayed execution, as the delay was caused by their failure to
properly mark the trees. He seeks recovery of ₹39,094/- along
with interest at 16% per annum from the defendants.
2025:HHC:13579
4. Defendants No.3 and 4, in their joint written statement,
admit the execution of the agreement but contest the suit on
preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of
action, valuation, and jurisdiction. On merits, they deny the
plaintiff's allegations and assert that the plaintiff informed them
about the unmarked trees only after six months of the work
being awarded. They argue that the delay in completion was
attributable to the plaintiff, and under Clause 12(b) of the
agreement, they were entitled to deduct an extension fee at 1%
per month of the contract value for the leftover work. They
maintain that the deduction was lawful and pray for the
dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of H.P. and Secretary,
Forest) did not file a separate written statement but adopted
the defence of defendants No.3 and 4. In his replication, the
plaintiff denies that he informed the authorities about the
unmarked trees only after six months. He reiterates that the
work could not commence on time due to the absence of
markings, making the trees unidentifiable.
6. The trial court framed the following issues on 3.5.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
₹49,976/- along with future interest @ 16% per
annum, 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
2025:HHC:13579
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
8. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-
joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD.
9. Whether the suit is not within limitation, as
alleged? OPD
10. Whether the suit is bad for want of better
particulars, as alleged? OPD
11. Relief
7. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the
trial court held that the plaintiff could not adhere to the
stipulated time period due to the defendants' failure to mark
and identify the trees. The fault lay with defendants No.3 and 4,
and they were not entitled to deduct any amount for delayed
execution. Accordingly, the trial court decided Issue No.1 in
favor of the plaintiff and the remaining issues against the
defendants, decreeing the suit for ₹49,976/- with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
8. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree dated
20.12.2019, defendants No.3 and 4 filed a first appeal. The
grounds of appeal stated that the trial court failed to appreciate
the evidence correctly and overlooked the fact that the plaintiff
did not comply with the agreement's terms within the stipulated
time. The plaintiff did not initiate work for six months and only
later raised the issue of unmarked trees. Despite this, the
defendants accommodated his request by re-enumerating the
trees. The appellants argued that under Clause 12(b) of the
2025:HHC:13579
agreement, they were entitled to deduct the extension fee for
the delay and that the trial court's decision is erroneous.
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 was held entitled to recover amount of ₹
39,094/- 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. ₹ 39,094/- 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 rest of the suit was decreed against
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
2025:HHC:13579
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.39,094/- was retained by defendants
No.3 and 4 as extension fee and security. The plaintiff,
however, claimed a principal amount of Rs.49,976/- 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)
