[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Anil Kuma And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FIRST APPEAL No.44 of 2004
======================================================
1. Anil Kumar S/O Sri Devendra Thakur C/o Sri. Dharmesh Kumar,
Advocate, Road No.23, Plot No.177, S.K. Nagar, Patna
2. M/S Associated Engineers through Anil Kumar, son of Devendra Thakur,
Abhishek Bhawan Raja Market, Ext. Road
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar through the Collector, Patna Collectoriat, Patna
2. The Commissioner, Water Resources, Dept.Govt.of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director (Purchase and Transport) Water Resource Department, Bihar
Barrak No.5, Harding Road, Patna.
4. Executive Engineer (Mech.Div)
5. Executive Engineer (Mech. Div) Gandak Proj. Valmiki Nagar, West
Champaran
6. Executive Engineer, (Mech.Div) Banaso Hazaribagh.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, GP-10
Mr. Virendra Kuar AC to GP-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the
appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') assailing the judgment
and decree dated 19.11.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge-
VI, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Money Suit
No. 134 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the suit instituted by
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
2/24
the plaintiffs (appellants) for recovery of Rs. 5,00,009/- was
dismissed with contest but without cost with liberty to the
plaintiff to re-agitate his claim before the higher authority of the
defendants i.e., the department concerned by placing relevant
papers to this context, if the plaintiff so desires.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties where
required shall be referred to in terms of their status before the
learned Trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that they were
engaged in the business of supply of electrical and mechanical
materials and, in pursuant to purchase orders issued by the
defendants-authorities of the Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, supplied the required materials as per the
terms and specifications of the agreement. The plaintiffs
asserted that the materials so supplied were duly received by the
concerned divisions and utilized in departmental works without
any immediate objection. According to them, despite
completion of supply and fulfillment of contractual obligations
on their part, the defendants failed to release payment of the
outstanding dues. It is asserted that the entire suit amount which
is to be realised by the plaintiff against the defendants are duly
mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint having explained as the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
3/24
principal amount for the goods supplies to the defendants
amounting to Rs 204922/- and the interest @24% per annum
since supply upto filing of the suit amounting to Rs 295087/-.
However, even the repeated requests and representations by the
plaintiff, did not yield them any result, compelling the plaintiff
to institute Money Suit No. 134 of 1999 for recovery of Rs.
5,00,009/- in toto including the interest accrued, in addition to
the other consequential reliefs.
5. The defendants appeared and filed their written
statement contesting the suit, denying the material allegations
made in the plaint by the plaintiff. It was stated, inter alia, that
the plaintiff had not supplied the materials strictly in accordance
with the prescribed specifications and contractual terms. It was
further stated that upon inspection and examination by the
departmental authorities, the materials were found to be sub-
standard and not conforming to the required technical standards.
It was stated that a liability committee was constituted to
examine the matter and, on the basis of its report, the claim of
the plaintiff was not found admissible. The defendants asserted
that in absence of proper certification and approval by the
competent authority, no liability could be fastened upon the
department for payment of the claimed amount. Therefore, the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
4/24
Money Suit was liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of pleadings as well as after hearing
the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
(I) Whether the present suit is barred by
any provision of law?
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
decree of Rs 5,00,009/- only and interest
@24% per annum till realization against
the defendants?
(III) Whether the plaintiff has supplied the
said material as per terms and conditions of
the supply order and whether the findings
hold by the concerned Liabilities
Committee are valid and genuine ?
(IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost
of the suit or any other relief or reliefs as
prayed for?
7. In support of their cases, both the parties have
adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff has
examined altogether four witnesses namely, PW-1 Anil Kumar
(Plaintiff/Appellant), PW-2 Ram Nagina Rai, PW-3 Awadh
Bihari Singh, and PW-4 Deep Narain Singh. PW-2 is the
advocate clerk who proved Ext.-5, and PWs-3 and 4 are formal
witnesses who proved Exts.- 6, 7 and 7/A. Moreover, the
plaintiff exhibited altogether ten documentary in support of his
case.
Ext.-1 is certified copy of the order dated
03.05.1999
passed in M.J.C. No. 1699 of
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
1996;
Ext.-1/A is certified copy of the order dated
18.12.1995 passed in CWJC No. 1262 of
1995; Ext.-2 is the letter dated 02.09.1986;
Ext.-3 is the letter dated 09.01.1990;
Ext.-4 is the letter dated 21.03.1990;
Ext.-5 is the challan dated 20.03.1990;
Ext.-6 is the signature on Inspection Report
dated 12.09.1986;
Ext.-7 is the signature on letter dated
06.11.1992;
Ext.-7/A is the signature on letter dated
15.02.1993; and
Ext.-8 is the certified of counter affidavit
filed by the respondent no.5 in CWJC
No.1262 of 1995.
8. On behalf of the defendants, only one oral witness
was examined namely, DW-1 Mahabir Tripathy who is engineer
in the concerned department. Moreover, documentary evidence
were adduced namely,
Ext.A and A/1 which is the Inspection
Report and
Ext.B is the report and photo copy of the
Enquiry Report marked as X for
identification.
9. The learned Trial Court, after considering the
pleadings, oral testimonies and documentary evidence adduced
by the parties, proceeded to examine the issues relating to
supply of materials, their conformity with prescribed
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
specifications, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the
claimed amount. The learned Trial Court observed that although
the plaintiff had brought on record purchase orders and bills to
show supply of materials, mere production of such documents
was not sufficient to establish that the materials supplied were in
strict compliance with the contractual and technical
specifications. The learned Trial Court placed considerable
reliance upon the report of the Departmental Liability
Committee, which had examined the materials and recorded that
the same were not in conformity with the required standards.
The learned Trial Court further held that the plaintiff failed to
effectively rebut the findings of the said committee through
cogent technical evidence and there was no satisfactory material
on record to demonstrate that the competent authority had
formally accepted the supplies after inspection and quality
verification in terms of the contract. The learned Trial Court also
noted that in contractual matters involving technical
specifications, the burden lies upon the supplier to establish due
performance of contractual obligations and observed that the
plaintiff could not discharge this burden to the satisfaction of the
Court. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiff were not
entitled to recovery of the claimed sum. Based on the aforesaid
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
findings, the learned Trial Court dismissed the Money Suit vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2003.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree
the plaintiff challenged the same in this First Appeal.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff has assailed the impugned judgment and
decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the pleadings and the documentary evidence
brought on record by the appellant/plaintiff. It is submitted that
the supply of materials was made strictly pursuant to valid
purchase orders issued by the competent departmental
authorities and that the same were duly received and entered in
the departmental records. Learned counsel submitted that once
the materials were received and utilized without any immediate
objection, a presumption of due acceptance arises, and the
respondents/defendants cannot subsequently withhold payment
on vague and unilateral allegations regarding quality.
11.i. Learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff further
submitted that the report of the Departmental Liability
Committee, heavily relied upon by the learned Trial Court, was
neither prepared in accordance with the contractual terms nor
proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
the said report was an internal departmental document prepared
behind the back of the appellant/plaintiff, without affording him
any opportunity of participation or explanation, and therefore
cannot override the documentary evidence demonstrating supply
and receipt of goods. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in placing undue reliance on such a report without
examining whether the contractual procedure for inspection and
rejection had been followed. Learned counsel also submitted
that onus to prove the liability committee report lies upon the
respondent and they have failed to discharge their onus thereby
making the liability committee report inadmissible as an
evidence.
11.ii. Learned counsel further submitted that the
burden of proving sub-standard supply, once receipt and
utilization were admitted, shifted upon the
respondents/defendants, which they failed to discharge through
cogent and reliable evidence. It is submitted that the learned
Trial Court adopted an erroneous approach by insisting upon
technical evidence from the plaintiffs while ignoring the
admitted fact of supply and departmental use. It is, therefore,
submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and liable to be
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
set aside, and that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to decree for
the claimed amount along with appropriate interest.
11.iii. Learned counsel for the appellant further put
reliance on various cases including Ramesh Chandra Agrawal
v. Regency Hospital Limited and Ors., reported in (2009) 9
SCC 709 and submitted that without examining an expert as a
witness, no reliance can be put on his opinion alone. Learned
counsel further relied on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v.
United Bank of India and Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120
and submitted that where a claim is admitted, the court has
jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a
decree on admitted claim. Furthermore, reliance was put on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala
Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Anr.,
reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752 and asserted that merely because
a document has been marked as an 'Exhibit', an objection to it
is not excluded and the same is available to be raised even at
later stage in Appeal or Revision. Based on the authorities relied
on by the learned counsel, it is submitted that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the impugned judgment and decree
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
passed by the learned Trial Court suffer from no illegality,
perversity, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It
is submitted that the learned Trial Court has meticulously
considered the pleadings, evidence, and materials on record and
has rightly dismissed the money suit on merits. Learned counsel
further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled
principles of law, and therefore, the same deserve to be
affirmed.
12.i. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3
further submitted that the entire claim of the appellant is
misconceived and devoid of merit inasmuch as the materials
supplied by them were not in conformity with the specifications
and terms stipulated in the purchase order. It is submitted that in
compliance with the earlier directions of this Court, the
respondents constituted a competent Liabilities Committee,
which, upon due scrutiny and verification, found that the
materials were sub-standard and not as per agreed
specifications. It is submitted that in furtherance to the
recommendations of the Liability Committee only the admitted
amount was paid to the appellant, and no further liability
subsists against the respondents.
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
12.ii. Learned counsel further submitted that the
appellants themselves violated the terms and conditions of the
contract by dispatching materials without prior inspection and
approval by the competent authority. It is submitted that the
reports of the concerned engineers and the findings of the expert
committee clearly establish that the supplied materials were
below the required standard, and therefore, the withholding of
payment was justified. It is also submitted that there was no
contractual stipulation for payment of interest, and hence, no
such claim is legally sustainable.
12.iii. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that the present appeal is nothing
but an attempt to re-agitate issues already settled by the
competent authority and duly adjudicated by the learned Trial
Court. It is submitted that the appeal is based on unfounded
assertions and is barred by limitation as well as devoid of
substance. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the present First
Appeal be dismissed at the admission stage itself, as it discloses
no arguable case for interference by this Court.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the materials available on record, the
primary point of determination in the present First Appeal that
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
arises before this Court is "whether the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned Trial Court in Money Suit No.134
of 1999 is sustainable in the eyes of law?"
14. At this stage, it is significant to mention that in a
First Appeal, the scope of interference by the High Court is wide
and co-extensive with that of the learned Trial Court. The
Appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate, re-assess and re-
analyse the entire evidence on record, both on facts as well as
on law, and may arrive at its own independent conclusions.
However, it is equally well settled that where the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and are neither perverse nor contrary to
the material on record, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere
lightly. Therefore, the interference is warranted only when the
findings of the learned Trial Court suffer from manifest
illegality, misreading of evidence, or where material evidence
has been ignored, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malluru
Mallappa (D) Thr. LRs. v. Kuruvathappa and Ors., reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 313 has extensively observed the scope of First
Appeal, which is reproduced as under:
"13. It is a settled position of law that an
appeal is a continuation of the proceedings
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
of the original court. Ordinarily, the
appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing
on law as well as on fact and is invoked by
an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a
valuable right of the appellant and therein
all questions of fact and law decided by the
trial court are open for reconsideration.
Therefore, the first appellate court is
required to address itself to all the issues
and decide the case by giving reasons. The
court of first appeal must record its findings
only after dealing with all issues of law as
well as fact and with the evidence, oral as
well as documentary, led by the parties. The
judgment of the first appellate court must
display conscious application of mind and
record findings supported by reasons on all
issues and contentions [see: Santosh Hazari
v. Purushottam Tiwari [Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179]
,Madhukar v. Sangram [Madhukar v.
Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756], B.M.
Narayana Gowda v. Shanthamma [B.M.
Narayana Gowda v. Shanthamma, (2011)
15 SCC 476: (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 619]
,H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith [H.K.N.
Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC
243] and Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v.
Rangaswamy Chettiar [Sri Raja Lakshmi
Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar,
(1980) 4 SCC 259] ]."
16. Before analysis of the facts of the present case and
the law settled therewith, it shall be significant to re-appreciate
some of the relevant evidence produced by the parties in support
of their respective case. In the present case, the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
respondents/defendants have examined only one witness in
support of their case, namely, Mahabir Tripathy (DW-1), who is
an engineer in the concerned department. He has deposed that
the Liability Committee was constituted of members, namely,
Chief Engineer Mechanical Shri H.N. Sinha, Executive
Engineer Mechanical Krishna Kumar Singh and Mechanical
Advisor Arvind Kumar Sinha, who enquired and scrutinized the
matter in detail and submitted their report accordingly. He
further deposed that on physical verification of the goods
supplied and proper enquiry thereon, the entire dues amount has
already been paid to the plaintiff/appellant. It is however,
deposed that the payment of the sub-standard goods were not
accepted by the Liability Committee. He has also deposed about
the investigation report by BIT Sindri. In his cross-examination,
D.W.-1 stated that plaintiff has not supplied the said articles as
per the order placed by the defendants/respondents.
17. On the other hand, PW-1 Anil Kumar
(appellant/plaintiff) has deposed about his claims made in the
plaint and the other three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff are
formal witnesses who have proved the Exhibits as mentioned
above.
18. Now, in the present case, it transpires from the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
record that the factum of issuance of purchase orders and supply
of materials by the plaintiff/appellant is not in serious dispute.
The documentary evidence brought on record, including the
letters and challans marked as exhibits, prima facie indicate that
the materials were dispatched and received by the concerned
departmental authorities. However, the crucial question that
arises is not merely of supply, but whether such supply was in
conformity with the contractual specifications and duly accepted
by the competent authority in terms of the agreement. Mere
proof of supply or receipt, in absence of proof of due inspection
and acceptance as per contractual stipulations, cannot ipso facto
fasten liability upon the defendants for payment of the claimed
amount.
19. At this juncture, it would be apposite to examine
the settled legal position governing contractual obligations in
cases of supply of goods. It is well settled that once the supplier
establishes that goods were supplied pursuant to a valid contract
and the same were received and utilized by the purchaser
without any contemporaneous objection, a presumption of due
acceptance arises in favour of the supplier. In such
circumstances, the burden shifts upon the purchaser to prove
that the goods were either rejected in accordance with the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
contractual procedure or were not in conformity with the agreed
specifications. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 recognizes that a
party who has enjoyed the benefit of a contract cannot evade its
corresponding obligation unless it establishes breach on the part
of the other side. It is equally well settled that rejection of goods
must be in strict adherence to the contractual terms, including
inspection and certification, and any unilateral or belated
rejection, not supported by cogent evidence, cannot defeat a
legitimate claim for payment. Therefore, in a case where supply,
receipt, and utilization stand proved, the law leans in favour of
the supplier, unless the purchaser discharges its burden by
establishing lawful and valid rejection in accordance with the
agreed terms.
20. The principle which have articulated in the
aforementioned is not confined to a single provision, but flows
from a combined reading of multiple provisions of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 which read as follow:
37. Obligation of parties to contracts- The
parties to a contract must either perform,
or offer to perform, their respective
promises, unless such performance is
dispensed with or excused under the
provisions of this Act, or of any other law.
Promises bind the representatives of the
promisors in case of the death of such
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
promisors before performance, unless a
contrary intention appears from the
contract.
70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit
of non-gratuitous act- Where a person
lawfully does anything for another person,
or delivers anything to him, not intending to
do so gratuitously, and such other person
enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is
bound to make compensation to the former
in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done
or delivered.
73.Compensation for loss or damage
caused by breach of contract- When a
contract has been broken, the party who
suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
from the party who has broken the contract,
compensation for any loss or damage
caused to him thereby, which naturally
arose in the usual course of things from
such breach, or which the parties knew,
when they made the contract, to be likely to
result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for
any remote and indirect loss or damage
sustained by reason of the breach.
21. Moreover, parties must perform their respective
promises unless excused. Once the supplier performs the
purchaser is bound to fulfill the reciprocal obligation i.e.,
payment. Further party enjoying the benefit must perform its
obligation. If a person lawfully does something for another (not
intending it to be gratuitous), and when the one person enjoys
the benefit, then the latter is bound to compensate. If the
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
purchaser wrongfully refuses payment despite valid supply, the
supplier is entitled to compensation for breach.
22. In this context, the reliance placed by the learned
Trial Court upon the report of the Liability Committee assumes
significance. It appears from the record that the said report
formed the principal basis for disbelieving the claim of the
plaintiff/appellant on the ground that the materials supplied
were sub-standard and not in conformity with the prescribed
specifications. However, a careful scrutiny is required as to
whether such report was duly proved in accordance with law
and whether it can be treated as substantive evidence.
Admittedly, the members of the said committee or any technical
expert associated with the preparation of the report were not
examined before the learned Trial Court to substantiate the
findings recorded therein. In absence of such examination, the
report remains an unproved document and its evidentiary value
becomes doubtful. It is well settled that opinion evidence,
particularly in technical matters, must be supported by
examination of the expert, and mere production of such report,
without substantiated by the concerned member of the Liability
Committee, cannot be made the sole basis for non-suiting the
plaintiff.
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
23. As rightly relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant, in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed with respect to the
evidentiary value of opinion without examination, as under:
"20. An expert is not a witness of fact and
his evidence is really of an advisory
character. The duty of an expert witness is
to furnish the Judge with the necessary
scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of
the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to
form his independent judgment by the
application of these criteria to the facts
proved by the evidence of the case. The
scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible,
convincing and tested becomes a factor and
often an important factor for consideration
along with other evidence of the case. The
credibility of such a witness depends on the
reasons stated in support of his conclusions
and the data and material furnished which
form the basis of his conclusions. (See
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar
Mukherjee [(2009) 9 SCC 221: (2009) 10
Scale 675], SCC p. 249, para 34.)
21. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu
[(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1088 :
AIR 2000 SC 1691] , it has been laid down
that without examining the expert as a
witness in court, no reliance can be placed
on an opinion alone. In this regard, it has
been observed in State (Delhi Admn.) v.
Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158: 1979 SCC
(Cri) 389: AIR 1979 SC 14] that "no expert
would claim today that he could be
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
absolutely sure that his opinion was
correct, expert depends to a great extent
upon the materials put before him and the
nature of question put to him."
24. Further, this Court finds substance in the submission
advanced on behalf of the appellant that once the respondents
admit receipt and utilization of the materials, the burden shifts
upon them to establish that the same were defective or not in
accordance with the contractual specifications. In the present
case, apart from placing reliance on the unproved report of the
Liability Committee and the testimony of DW-1, no cogent and
substantial evidence has been adduced by the respondents to
conclusively demonstrate that the materials supplied were sub-
standard and not in accordance with the terms of the contract. It
is also pertinent to note that the evidence on record does not
disclose any contemporaneous objection being raised at the time
of receipt or that the procedure prescribed under the contract for
rejection of goods was duly followed. In such circumstances,
the withholding of payment appears to lack adequate legal
justification.
25. That apart, it is also evident from the record that the
learned Trial Court has placed the entire burden upon the
appellant/plaintiff to prove strict compliance of technical
specifications, while failing to appreciate that in contractual
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
transactions of this nature, where supply, receipt and utilization
are either admitted or duly established, a corresponding
obligation is cast upon the purchaser to demonstrate lawful
rejection in accordance with the agreed procedure. The approach
adopted by the learned Trial Court, therefore, appears to be one-
sided and not in consonance with the settled principles relating
to burden of proof. The failure to consider this vital aspect has
resulted in misappreciation of evidence, thereby vitiating the
findings recorded on the core issue of entitlement of the
plaintiff.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied
upon Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
"28. There are two senses in which the
phrase "burden of proof" is used in the
Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Evidence Act"
hereinafter). One is the burden of proof
arising as a matter of pleading and the
other is the one which deals with the
question as to who has first to prove a
particular fact. The former is called the
"legal burden" and it never shifts, the latter
is called the "evidential burden" and it
shifts from one side to the other. [See
Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian
(Evacuee Property) [Kundan Lal Rallaram
v. Custodian (Evacuee Property), 1961 SCC
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1961 SC 1316].
29. The legal burden is the burden of proof
which remains constant throughout a trial.
It is the burden of establishing the facts and
contentions which will support a party's
case. If, at the conclusion of the trial a
party has failed to establish these to the
appropriate standards, he would lose to
stand. The incidence of the burden is
usually clear from the pleadings and
usually, it is incumbent on the plaintiff or
complainant to prove what he pleaded or
contends. On the other hand, the evidential
burden may shift from one party to another
as the trial progresses according to the
balance of evidence given at any particular
stage; the burden rests upon the party who
would fail if no evidence at all, or no
further evidence, as the case may be is
adduced by either side (see Halsbury's
Laws of England, 4th Edn. para 13). While
the former, the legal burden arising on the
pleadings is mentioned in Section 101 of the
Evidence Act, the latter, the evidential
burden, is referred to in Section 102 thereof.
[G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri
[G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri,
1986 SCC OnLine AP 147: AIR 1987 AP
139] affirmed in Bharat Barrel & Drum
Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal [Bharat
Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand
Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35] .]"
27. In view of the aforesaid discussions and upon re-
appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
the learned Trial Court suffer from material irregularity and
misappreciation of evidence. The learned Trial Court has erred
in placing decisive reliance upon an unproved report of the
Liability Committee, without examining its authors or
establishing its evidentiary value in accordance with law.
Further, the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the
admitted or established facts relating to supply and utilization of
materials and incorrectly placed the entire burden upon the
plaintiff to prove strict compliance, without requiring the
defendants to substantiate their plea of sub-standard supply
through cogent evidence. Such an approach has resulted in a
perverse finding on the core issue of entitlement, thereby
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
28. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.11.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court in Money
Suit No. 134 of 1999 is hereby set aside. The suit filed by the
plaintiff/appellant is decreed. The plaintiff/appellant is held
entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs. 2,04,922/- from
the defendants/respondents after deducting the amount already
paid by the defendants/respondents on recommendation of the
Liability Committee.
Patna High Court FA No.44 of 2004 dt.10-04-2026
29. So far as the claim of interest @24% per annum is
concerned, this Court finds that there is no clear contractual
stipulation on record justifying such a high rate of interest.
However, considering the nature of the transaction, the delay in
payment, and the fact that the amount remained unpaid for a
considerable period, the ends of justice would be met if the
plaintiff/appellant is awarded reasonable interest. Accordingly,
the plaintiff/appellant shall be entitled to interest @6% per
annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the
suit till realization within 6 months from the date of passing of
this judgment. However, in default thereof, the appellant shall
be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till its realisation.
30. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with cost.
31. Let the Trial Court records be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 03.02.2026
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission NA
Date
