Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.A. Ravi Chengappa vs The Chief Secretary on 10 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
RSA No. 1377 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2023 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.A. RAVI CHENGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.A. AIYAMMA,
RESIDING AT MADENADU VILLAGE,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by DEVIKA M BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE PRINICPAL SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
MADIKERI-571201.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO),
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
MADIKERI-571 201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
RSA No. 1377 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO),
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
MADIKERI-571 201
6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO),
HAKATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADIKERI-571 201.
7. THE SECRETARY,
HAKATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
8. THE SECRETARY,
MADIKERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
R2, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 06.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.70/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADIKERI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
RSA No. 1377 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and
the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding of the Trial Court and dismissal of the
suit on merits as well as on limitation, which is affirmed
by the Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is a class-1 Civil
Contractor, he undertakes contract work from
Government Institutions, quasi Government Institutions,
private parties etc. It is stated that during 2000-2001,
the Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work
of forming road to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary colony in
Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, leveling of ground work
near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
the said colony. The plaintiff had successfully completed
the said work as per the directions and norms of the said
Grama Panchayath and concerned Engineer. It is
contended that the concerned qualified Engineer visited
the spot and estimated the total cost of the said work to
the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- only. The plaintiff submitted
the bill to the Grama Panchayath and demanded for
payment, but defendant No.7 sought time on the ground
that the amount has to be sanctioned by the Madikeri
Taluk Panchayath. The defendant No.7 failed to make
payment by giving false and frivolous excuses. The
plaintiff had borrowed loan from bank, other financial
institutions to complete the work. The plaintiff is not in a
position to repay the same due to non-payment of
money by defendant No.7. The plaintiff got issued a
legal notice to defendant No.7 demanding the payment.
The defendant No.7 received the notice and assured the
plaintiff orally that he would contact higher authorities
and take necessary steps to make the payment, but he
did not made any payment. Therefore, the plaintiff again
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
issued notice to defendant No.7, but he informed that
payment cannot be made on some technical grounds.
Hence, the suit was filed.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant
Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the DGP and filed the
written statement and defendant Nos.4 to 8 appeared
through their respective counsel. The defendant Nos.7
and 8 filed their separate written statement. The
defendant Nos.4 to 7 filed memo to adopt the written
statement of defendant No.7 as written statement of
defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the learned DGP filed memo to
adopt the written statement of defendant Nos.7 and 8 as
written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
5. The defendant No.7 in the written statement
contended that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had
entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri bane
paisari colony in Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work
near Aiyappa temple for formation of play ground near
the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
No.7 denied that the plaintiff successfully completed the
work as per the directions of the Grama Panchayath. It
is contended that these defendants are not liable to pay
any amount. The suit is barred by limitation. It is
contended that the alleged entrusted work is not
mentioned in any action plan prepared by the Grama
Panchayath or Taluk Panchayath. It is contended that
the plaintiff has to prove the entrustment of the work.
The Junior Engineer attached to the Grama Panchayath
have no right to give private estimation for Rs.5,30,000/-
. It is contended that the Secretary, Hakathur Grama
Panchayath paid an amount of Rs.64,400/- to the
plaintiff in seven stages and the plaintiff has recovered
the said sum for the work conducted by him and prayed
the Court to dismiss the suit.
6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds
urged in the suit as well as the written statement, framed
the issues with regard to the liability as well as limitation
and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
documents at Exs.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the
defendants examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2
and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2. The
Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 5
and 6 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that
the plaintiff was unsuccessful in placing on record with
regard to successfully completing the entrusted work on
contract basis as per the norms of the Grama Panchayath
and the defendants are not liable to pay Rs.5,30,000/- as
claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court answered issue
Nos.3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that
the suit is barred by limitation and the claim made by the
plaintiff that work was done according to the plaintiff in
2000-2001 and suit was filed in 2016 and the suit ought
to have been filed within three years as per Article 18 of
the Limitation Act.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit on
merits as well as limitation, an appeal is filed in
R.A.No.14/2021. The Appellate Court having considered
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record
and also the grounds urged in the appeal, extracted the
grounds and also formulated the point whether the Trial
Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and
whether the Trial Court is right in concluding that the
plaintiff failed to prove that he had completed the said
work which was entrusted to him. The Trial Court comes
to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that
the defendants are liable to pay the amount of
Rs.5,30,000/- and affirmed the order of the Trial Court
that the suit is barred by limitation by answering point
No.4 in the affirmative.
8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that both the Courts were not justified in
dismissing the suit. The learned counsel contend that
defendant No.7 in its written statement admitted that
Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
forming road to Biligeri bane paisari colony in
Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work near Aiyappa Temple
for formation of playground near the said colony in the
year 2000-2001. The defendant also contended in the
written statement that the plaintiff successfully
completed the work as per the directions of the Grama
Panchayath. The learned counsel contend that the
plaintiff relied upon the documents at Exs.P.2 to 7, 10
and 13, which indicate that there are clear admissions
with regard to the work entrusted to the appellant.
Inspite of the work was entrusted, both the Courts
erroneously comes to the conclusion that the work was
not entrusted and not placed on record the material for
entrusting the work and hence this Court has to frame
the substantial question of law that both the Courts have
committed an error in considering the material on record
and not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and
also the appeal. Hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 would
submit that though there is an admission in the written
statement of defendant No.7, the same is not in respect
of the claim made by the plaintiff and no doubt, other
work entrusted for Rs.64,400/- was paid in respect of the
work done and not in respect of the claim made by the
plaintiff.
11. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6
would contend that the written statement filed by
defendant No.7 is clear regarding entrustment of the
work for formation of road to Biligeri bane paisary colony
in Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, but not given any work
near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near
the said colony and no such entrustment work was given
to the plaintiff and also not placed any document for
having entrusted the work. Both the Courts having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record, rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff in the
absence of any work entrustment order. Regarding
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
limitation is concerned also, discussed the same in detail
that admittedly the work according to the plaintiff was
done in 2000-2001 and the suit was filed in 2016 and the
very contention that correspondence will renew the
limitation cannot be accepted as contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant and prays this Court to
dismiss the second appeal as there is no substantial
question of law.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also having perused the material
available on record, particularly the averments made in
the plaint, in the plaint claim is made for an amount of
Rs.5,30,000/- from the defendants along with interest.
It is important to note that in the plaint averments, it is
the specific case of the plaintiff that Hakathur Grama
Panchayath had entrusted the work of formation of road
to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary colony in Sy.No.87/1 of
the said village, leveling of ground work near Aiyappa
Temple and formation of play ground near the said
colony. Having considered the claim is concerned i.e., in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
respect of work of formation of road to Biligeri-Bakka
bane paisary, the same is not disputed by the defendants
and in the written statement of defendant No.7 the same
is admitted, but took the defence that no other work was
entrusted for leveling of ground work near Aiyappa
Temple and formation of play ground near the said
colony. The plaintiff relied upon the document of
estimation for road development, proceedings of Village
Panchayath, proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner,
certified copies of the office correspondence, proposal by
Taluk Panchayath, Madikeri, application for releasing
money, endorsement by PDO, application by the plaintiff
to PDA, report given by PDO and the same has been
discussed by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion
that for having entrusted the work in respect of leveling
of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of
play ground near the said colony, no such order of
entrustment is placed on record and detail discussion was
made while considering issue Nos.1 to 3. The Trial Court
also taken note of the documents relied upon by the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
plaintiff and each of the documents were discussed i.e.
Exs.P.1 to 6 and particularly relied upon Ex.P.6 and
having considered those documents, comes to the
conclusion that nothing is placed on record for having
work order was issued in favour of the plaintiff entrusting
the work in respect of those two works which have been
disputed by the defendants. The Trial Court observed
that in the absence of the relevant document, it cannot
come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully
carried out the work entrusted. The Junior Engineer of
the Taluk Panchayath visited the spot and gave the
estimation in terms of Ex.P.2 and the same cannot be
believed as the same is not an approved document.
There is no any other material available to show when he
has visited the spot and how he has estimated the work
and the approval of the estimation and the same is
considered by the Trial Court.
13. With regard to the limitation aspect also,
specific issue was framed i.e., issue No.3 and the same
has been considered by the Trial Court in paragraph
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
Nos.23 to 26 that suit is not filed within three years and
as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be
filed within three years and there is no acknowledgment
acknowledging the liability within the period of three
years and also correspondence is only after 2009 and
2014 and hence comes to the conclusion that the suit is
barred by limitation.
14. The Appellate Court while re-considering and
re-assessing the material available on record, taken note
of each and every documents which have been placed by
the plaintiff i.e., Exs.P.2 and 3, which has been
considered in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33 and Ex.P.4 in
paragraph No.34 and in respect of Ex.P.5 at paragraph
Nos.36 and 37. The Appellate Court also taken note of
for having made the payment of Rs.64,400/- to the
plaintiff. Ex.P.5 also shows that after the Secretary of
Hakathur Grama Panchayath has given such a requisition
on 15.02.2009, the concerned had sent that
recommendation to the Superintendent of Accounts and
afterwards, the Taluk Panchayath authority concluded
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
that there is/was no document in the office concerned to
conclude that Ravi Chengappa (plaintiff herein) had been
entrusted such works and Ravi Chengappa has completed
the said works and there was no discussion in this
connection, hence it was not possible to give any amount
to Sri Ravi Chengappa. In paragraph No.38, discussion
was made that in Ex.P.5 there is no indication that on
what basis the Secretary of Hakathur Grama Panchayath
has made such recommendation to the Taluk Panchayath
and higher officials. Each and every documents of the
plaintiff, which has been placed on record is discussed by
the Appellate Court in paragraph No.45 and comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has not produced anything to
show that the said Ashok Kumar, the then Junior
engineer attached to that Panchayath, was the Executive
Officer and hence he had or has the power of inspection
and supervision etc. Hence, at first blush it creates an
impression that the said Ashok Kumar never had any
power of inspection. Hence, the so called submission
made by said Ashok Kumar to the effect that he
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
requested the plaintiff to form the road and subsequently
the plaintiff completed the work entrusted to him and the
same is not substantiated by placing any document of
entrustment. Having re-assessed the material available
on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
that nothing is placed on record for having entrusted the
work in respect of unadmitted work. The Appellate Court
considered the matter on merits and also considered the
point for consideration in respect of limitation i.e., issue
No.4 and taken note of that claim was not made within
time and there was a long gap of 15 to 16 years in
claiming the dues. In paragraph Nos.73 to 75 discussed
with regard to the limitation aspect also.
15. Having taken note of the reasoning given by
the Trial Court, the Trial Court has given the fact finding
with regard to the entrustment of work and consideration
of question of law in respect of limitation is concerned.
The Appellate Court also taken note of both question of
fact and question of law. The very ground urged in the
second appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
with regard to the admission is that this Court has to
frame the substantial question of law. No doubt,
defendant No.7 in the written statement pleaded with
regard to the entrustment of work with regard to
Hathakur Grama Panchayath i.e., formation of road, but
specific denial was made that no work was entrusted
near Aiyappa Temple for formation of play ground near
the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant
No.7 denied the very claim made by the plaintiff and the
same is also with regard to the factual aspect is
concerned and no question of law is found in the case on
hand. Both the Courts applied their mind and considered
the dispute with regard to the question of fact and
question of law and in the absence of substantial
question of law, the question of framing the substantial
question of law does not arise. No ground is made out to
frame the substantial question of law.
16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19653
HC-KAR
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
