State And Anr vs M/S Rama Road Career
2026 Latest Caselaw 632 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State And Anr vs M/S Rama Road Career on 16 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:1638]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 179/1997

1.     The State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Jodhpur
       (Rajasthan)
2.     The Executive Engineer, 28th Division, I.G.N.P. Phalodi,
       District Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
M/s Rama Road Career, Basant Bhawan, A/132, Nehru Nagar,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. L.K Purohit
For Respondent(s)            :     None present



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Judgment

(i) Arguments concluded on: 12.01.2026

(ii) Judgment reserved on: 12.01.2026

(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment

(iv) Judgment pronounced on : .01.2026

1. This civil first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs

against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.1997 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Phalodi in Civil Regular Suit No.68/1993

titled as "State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. M/s Rama Road Career",

whereby civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05,882/- filed by the

appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The facts which are germane for the present first appeal, in

nutshell, are that appellants-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (2 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

recovery of Rs. 2,05,882/- against the respondent-defendant

before the court of Additional District Judge, Phalodi (hereinafter

referred to as "trial court"), which was registered as Civil Original

Suit No. 68/1993 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. M/s Rama Road

Career). It was pleaded in the suit that as per Contract No. 6 of

the year 1983-84, plaintiffs allotted work of transporting 1250

M.T. cement from Nimbahera to Ramdevra to defendant-firm.

Under the contract, defendant-firm received 5100 bags of cement,

however, due to defendant's act of storing cement bags at Ahinsa

Nagar, Chittorgarh Chungi Naka without authorization, District

Supply Officer, Chittorgarh seized cement on 02.07.1983. The

defendant neither informed plaintiff about seizure nor obtained

prior permission of plaintiffs for storage. Despite repeated

requests by the plaintiffs, defendant failed to complete the

transportation work. By letter dated 20.11.1983, defendant was

informed that if the work was not completed, recovery would be

made at double rates. Since the cement was not transported as

per contract, Executive Engineer, 20th Division, Phalodi, by letter

dated 31.10.1984, requested the District Collector, Jaisalmer to

recover ₹2,05,882/- from defendant-firm. But no action was taken

despite reminders, including a final reminder dated 29.04.1990.

Therefore, present suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking a decree of

₹2,05,882/- along with interest against defendant-firm.

3. Respondent-defendant filed written statement denying

averments made in the suit and pleaded that contract for cement

transportation was under the orders of the Rajasthan Canal

Project, 20th Division and that 5100 bags of cement were

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (3 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

dispatched to Ramdevra, required to reach by 30.06.1983. When

consignment reached Chittorgarh, route ahead was found blocked.

Due to compulsion, cement was stored in a rented godown at

Ahinsa Nagar, Chittorgarh. District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh,

illegally seized cement bags on 02.07.1983. Despite efforts, no

cooperation was given by the Executive Engineer, 20 th Division,

Rajasthan Canal Project to get the goods released. Because of the

seizure, timely delivery became impossible. On 10.05.1984,

appellate authority ordered release of the cement but no

departmental representative came for inspection, resulting in

deterioration of cement quality. It was further contended that

delay occurred due to negligence of the State Government and

departmental authorities. In the additional pleas, it was pleaded

that suit was barred by limitation, that Plaintiff No. 2 had no

authority to file the suit and that no person was duly authorized

by the State Government to institute the suit. The defendant

detailed expenses and losses, stating that value of cement was

₹1,70,850/-, freight charges ₹1,41,192/-, legal and seizure-

related expenses ₹5,000/-, godown rent ₹7,500/-, security

deposit ₹25,000/- and chowkidar expenses ₹1,400/-, totaling

₹1,80,092/-. After adjustment of ₹1,70,850/- towards cost of

cement, defendant claimed entitlement to ₹9,242/- from the

plaintiffs and filed a counter-claim accordingly.

4. In rejoinder, it was stated by the plaintiffs that due to

administrative reorganization, 20th Division, Phalodi later came

under the 28th Division, Phalodi, giving Plaintiff No. 2 authority to

file the suit. It was asserted that double freight liability for 5100

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (4 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

bags of cement amounted to ₹3,44,250/- and after adjusting

payable amounts of ₹1,38,368/-, a sum of ₹2,05,882/- remained

recoverable from defendant. The plaintiff denied the defendant's

counter-claim.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial court framed

following issues on 15.03.1995 & 14.02.1997 as under :-

"1 vk;k oknh }kjk çfroknh dks fuEckgsMk ls jkensojk rd 1250 ,e Vh- lhsesaV <qykbZ dk dk;Z vuqca/k laå 6 o"kZ 1983&84 }kjk vkoafVr fd;k x;k ?

2- vk;k çfroknh us 5100 Fksyk lhesaV dks QSDVªh ls çkIr dj fpÙkkSMx<+ pqaxh ukds vfgalk uxj ¼fpÙkkSMx<½ esa voS/k :i ls Hk.Mkj.k dj fn;k bl dkj.k nkok esa of.kZr vk/kkj ij oknh çfroknh ls 2]05]882@&:0 dh olwyh djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ?

3- vk;k oknh çfroknh ls mä jkf'k ij nk;jh nkok ls rkolwyh 16 çfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ?

4- vk;k nkok oknh E;kn ckgj gS ?

5- vk;k vuqca/k oknh laå 2 ls ugha gqvk ds dkj.k oknh laå 2 dks nkok djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS ?

6- vk;k tokc nkok ds c;ku ethn ds iSjk laå 6 esa of.kZr vuqlkj çfroknh QeZ ds Hkkxhnkjku vko';d i{kdkjku gS] ftUgsa i{kdkj cuk;s fcuk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS ?

6,- vk;k çfroknh ds vfrfjä vfHkdFku ds en laå 3 ds vk{ksi vuqlkj oknh dks okn i= ij gLrk{kj djus ds fy, vf/kdkjh ugha Fkk ?

6ch- vk;k çfroknh vfrfjä dFku ds en laå 4 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dkmUVj Dyse ds vuqlkj çfroknh oknh ls 9]242@& :i;s çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ƒ 7- vuqrks"k ?"

6. In support of their case, appellants-plaintiffs examined P.W.1

- Kailash Gaur, P.W.2 - Sitaram, P.W.3 - R.K. Garg, P.W.4 -

Mukhsendra Gupta and P.W.5 - Hanuman Singh. On behalf of the

respondent-defendant firm, D.W.1 - Satish Chandra Gupta was

examined in rebuttal. Upon appreciation of the evidence on

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (5 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

record, the trial court decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the

appellants-plaintiffs; Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 against appellants-

plaintiffs and in favour of the respondent-defendant and Issue

Nos. 6, 6A and 6B against respondent-defendant. Consequently,

both the civil suit as well as counter-claim were dismissed.

Aggrieved by the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 4 and 5,

appellants-plaintiffs preferred present first appeal.

7. The relevant portion of findings on Issue Nos. 4 and 5 are

reproduced as under :-

"rudh la[;k 4 %& 11- çfroknh QeZ dh rjQ ls çLr`r tokc nkok ds eqrkfcd nkok e;kn ckgj gSA ;g Loh--r rF; gS fd fuEckgsM+k ls jkensojk rd 1250 ,e- Vh- lhesaV dh <qykbZ ls lacaf/kr vuqca/k la[;k 6 o"kZ 1983&84 dh vof/k fnukad 30-6-83 rd FkhA vuqca/k çn'kZ 1 ls Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd bl vuqca/k dh vof/k fnå 26-3-83 ls 30-6-83 rd FkhA okni= ls Li"V ugha gksrk fd nkok oknhx.k fdl rjg ls e;kn Hkhrj gSA okni= ds iSjk laå 10 esa mYys[k gS fd vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark 20 oka [k.M Qyksnh us vius i= fnå 31-10-84 ds }kjk jkf'k olwyh gsrq ftyk/kh'k] tSlyesj dks fy[kk] tgka ls i= fnukad 14-11-84 bl vk{ksi ds lkFk çkIr gqvk fd yksd ekxZ olwyh vf/kfu;e 1952 ds rgr olwyh dk;Zokgh dh tkosaA bl ij vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark 20 oka [k.M Qyksnh us olwyh ds laca/k esa i= fnukad 5-11-85 dks ftyk/kh'k] t;iqj dks çsf"kr fd;kA vafre Lej.k i= fnukad 24-9-90 dks çsf"kr fd;k] ysfdu dksbZ tokc çkIr ugha gksus ij nkok is'k djuk iM+kA esjh jk; esa ftyk/kh'k] tSlyesj o ftyk/kh'k] t;iqj dks jkf'k olwyh ds laca/k esa i= fy[ks tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha Fkk rFkk bl dk;Zokgh ls ;g nkok e;kn Hkhrj gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA ifjlheu vf/kfu;e ds fdlh çko/kku ds rgr oknhx.k us nsjh ekQ fd;s tkus dk fuosnu ugha fd;k gSA bl vf/kfu;e ds vuqPNsn 11 ds rgr Li"V çko/kku gS fd eky okgd ds fo#) {kfriwfrZ ckcr nkok eky fMyhojh dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kZ ds Hkhrj is'k fd;k tkuk laHko gSA fopkjk/khu ekeys esa Lohd`r :i ls 5100 dês lhesaV jkensojk igqapkus dh vof/k fnå 30-6-83 dks lekIr gks x;h tcfd çkaroknh QeZ ds fo#) ;g nkok fnukad 19-1- 93 dks vR;f/kd nsjh ls is'k fd;k x;k gS ftl nsjh ckcr dksbZ mfpr otg Hkh ugha gSA ekeys dh bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjh jk; esa nkok oknh Li"Vr% e;kn ckgj gSA ;g rudh oknhx.k ds fo#) ,oa çfroknh QeZ ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA

rudh la[;k 5 %& 12- ;g Hkh Loh--r rF; gS fd dfFkr vuqca/k oknh laå 2 ls ugha gqvkA oknh laå 2 dh rjQ ls çLrqr tokcwy tokc

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (6 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

esa ;g mYys[k gS fd dkykUrj esa 20ok [k.M oknh la[;k 2 ds v/khu vk x;k] ysfdu bl laca/k esa dksbZ larks"ktud çek.k oknhx.k dh rjQ ls is'k ugha gqvk gSA oknhx.k dh rjQ ls is'k fd;s x;s fdlh xokg us bl laca/k esa fLFkfr dks Li"V ugha fd;k gSA ih- M- 3 vkj- ds- xxZ rRdkyhu vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark 20 oka [k.M us rks vius dFku esa tkfgj fd;k gS fd vHkh vkbZ- th- ,u- ih- dk 20 oka [k.M chdkusj esa gksuk pkfg,A tc jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk ds rgr dbZ [k.M gS rFkk çfoZoknh QeZ ds lkFk dfFkr vuqca/k 20 oka [k.M }kjk fd;k x;k rks fdlh rjg dh {kfriwfrZ ls lacaf/kr nkok is'k djus dk vf/kdkj 20 oka [k.M ;k jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk dks gh gks ldrk gSA oknh laå 2 ;g nkok is'k djus ds fy, jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk ;k dfFkr 20oka [k.M }kjk vf/k--r gksus ckcr i=koyh ij dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa es jh jk; esa oknh laå 2 nkok is'k djus ds fy, vf/k--r ugha gS A oknh la[;k 1 jktLFkku jkT; tfj, ftyk/kh'k] tks/kiqj i{kdkj gS] ysfdu çFke rks jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk ;k blds v/khu 20 oka [k.M dh rjQ ls nkok is'k djus ds fy, jktLFkku jkT; tfj, ftyk/kh'k] tks/kiqj i{kdkj gksus dk vkSfpR; çrhr ugha gksrk] D;ksafd jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk ,d Lora= foHkkx gS] ftldk çfrfuf/kRo jkT; ljdkj dh rjQ ls ftyk/kh'k }kjk ugha fd;k tk ldrk] fnrh; okn i= ij jkT; ljdkj dh rjQ ls ftyk/kh'k] tks/kiqj ds gLrk{kj ugha gS rFkk u gh jkT; ljdkj dh rjQ ls nkok is'k djus ds fy, vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark 28 oka [k.M dks vf/k--r fd;s tkus ckcr~ dksbZ vk/kkj i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjh jk; esa oknh la[;k 2 nkok is'k djus ds fy, vf/k--r ugha gSA ;g rudh çfroknh QeZ ds i{k esa r; dh vkrh gSA"

8. No one put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-

defendant despite service.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has contended

that the trial court gravely erred in deciding Issue Nos. 4 and 5

against appellants-plaintiffs and in favour of the respondent-

defandant. It has been submitted that findings recorded are

vitiated by material irregularity and patent illegality, inasmuch as

the trial court failed to consider undisputed and admitted facts on

record.

With regard to Issue No. 4, it has been argued that the

appellants-plaintiffs had bonafide, diligently and in good faith

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (7 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

pursued recovery proceedings under the provisions of the PDR Act

before the District Collectors, Jaisalmer and Jaipur. The said

proceedings remained pending for a considerable period and the

appellants-plaintiffs lastly issued a reminder dated 29.04.1990. It

has been contended that if limitation is computed from the date of

the last communication i.e. 29.04.1990, suit was clearly within the

prescribed period of limitation. It has been submitted that

appellants-plaintiffs, having prosecuted their remedy with due

diligence and in good faith before a wrong forum, were entitled to

the benefit of exclusion of time and condonation of delay under

Sections 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The

learned trial court, however, failed to apply said statutory

provisions and dismissed the suit without excluding period during

which the proceedings remained pending under the PDR Act. It is

thus contended that suit was well within limitation or in the

alternative, any delay deserved to be condoned.

So far as Issue No. 5 is concerned, learned counsel has

submitted that the trial court erred in holding the suit to be not

maintainable, despite admitted position that contract in question

was executed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and was

subsequently transferred to the 28th Division, IGNP, Phalodi,

pursuant to orders dated 01.11.1985. In view of the said transfer,

the suit was fully maintainable. It has been further urged that

State of Rajasthan being real and substantive plaintiff, suit having

been instituted through its duly authorised officer could not have

been dismissed on hyper-technical or procedural grounds. The

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (8 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

findings of the trial court on Issue No. 5 are, therefore,

unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment impugned.

12. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly, contract for

transportation of cement (Contract No. 6 of 1983-84) was

operative from 26.03.1983 to 30.06.1983. The obligation of the

respondent-defendant to deliver cement at Ramdevra stood

required to be completed by 30.06.1983. The appellants-plaintiffs'

entire cause of action was founded on the alleged failure of the

respondent-defendant to complete transportation work within the

contractual period. Thus, right to sue first accrued to the

appellants-plaintiffs immediately upon expiry of the contract

period i.e. on or about 30.06.1983. Under Article 11 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, which governs suits for compensation

against a carrier for loss or non-delivery of goods, limitation

prescribed is three years from the date when the goods ought to

have been delivered. Thus, the suit ought to have been filed on or

before 30.06.1986. However, in the case in hand, suit was

instituted only on 19.01.1993 i.e. nearly ten years after accrual of

cause of action, rendering it ex facie barred by limitation. So far

as effect of recovery proceedings under the PDR Act is concerned,

principal argument advanced by the appellants is that limitation

should be computed by excluding period during which recovery

proceedings were pursued before the District Collectors under the

Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 and that benefit of

Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act ought to have been

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (9 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

granted. This contention is devoid of merit for the reason that

mere correspondence or administrative efforts for recovery under

the PDR Act do not have effect of extending or suspending

limitation for a civil suit. Section 14 ibid applies only where a

litigant has been prosecuting another civil proceeding before a

court or quasi-judicial forum which lacked jurisdiction. The

proceedings before the District Collector under the PDR Act are

executive in nature, not civil proceedings before a court. Hence,

the foundational requirement for invoking Section 14 is absent.

Further, there was no pleading or proof that recovery proceedings

were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. Even, no

application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act was ever filed. In the absence of any such pleadings

or a formal prayer, the trial court rightly declined to extend the

limitation period suo motu. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the trial court rightly concluded that suit was instituted

beyond the prescribed limitation period and that plaintiffs failed to

explain inordinate delay of nearly a decade. Therefore, findings on

Issue No. 4 suffers from no legal or factual infirmity.

13. With regard to Issue No. 5, from the pleadings and evidence

on record, it reveals that contract in question was executed by the

20th Division of the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP). The IGNP

is a distinct and specialised department, functioning separately

from general administrative setup of the State. The suit,

therefore, ought to have been instituted either by the concerned

IGNP Division which entered into the contract or by the State of

Rajasthan through an officer specifically authorised to represent

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (10 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

the IGNP. The appellants-plaintiffs sought to justify Plaintiff No. 2's

locus by pleading that 20th Division was later brought under the

28th Division, Phalodi, due to administrative reorganisation.

However, neither any government order or notification evidencing

such transfer nor any documentary evidence authorising Executive

Engineer, 28th Division, to institute suit relating to contracts

executed by the 20th Division, was placed on record before the

trial court. No notification or power of attorney authorising

Executive Engineer, 28th Division, to represent the State in

respect of IGNP contracts was produced. The law is well settled

that authorisation to sue on behalf of the State is not a mere

technicality, but a mandatory requirement, especially in

contractual matters. So far as copies of the orders dated

05.04.1984 and 01.11.1985 produced on record as Annexure-1 &

2 along with memo of appeal is concerned, same were not

brought on record before the trial court. Even, no application to

bring these additional documents on record has been filed by the

appellants-plaintiffs in the appeal. Although, the State of

Rajasthan was arrayed as Plaintiff No.1, the suit still suffered from

a defect as the plaint was not signed and verified by a duly

authorised officer of the State. The trial court, therefore, rightly

held that Plaintiff No. 2 lacked authority to institute the suit. In

view of the absence of proof of contractual privity, delegation or

authorisation, the trial court's findings that Plaintiff No. 2 was not

competent to file the suit, are based on correct appreciation of

facts, evidence and settled principles of law. Therefore, in the

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1638] (11 of 11) [CFA-179/1997]

opinion of this Court, findings on Issue No. 5 suffers from no legal

or factual infirmity.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find

any ground to interfere in the well reasoned findings recorded by

the trial court.

15. Consequently, present first appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed. The judgment and decree impugned dated 23.07.1997

passed by the trial court is affirmed.

16. No order as to cost.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J

/Jitender//-

(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 06:05:07 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)