1994 PLP 1712 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of civil appeal CA. 485/89 preferred by the Province of Punjab appellant, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑6‑1989 accepting the regular second appeal of M/s. Evergreen Press, respondent, and raising the claim of the respondent firm from Rs.1,46,500 to Rs.2,17,460, and civil petition C.P. 584/90 filed by the Province of the Punjab, petitioner, against the order of the same learned Single Judge dated 21‑1‑1990 rejecting its application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment dated ` 3‑6‑1989.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab, by two circular letters dated 4‑1‑1977 and 5‑1‑1977 addressed to the respondent firm invited quotations for printing through offset process certain pamphlets of denominations ranging between 20,000 and 50,000 for the Forest Department. By quotations dated 26‑1‑1977 the respondent firm offered to print the stated pamphlets for a sum of Rs.1,10,760 and Rs.1,06,700 respectively. The rates quoted and offered through tenders by the respondent firm being the lowest, were accepted by the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab vide their letters dated 28‑1‑1977 and 10‑1‑1977 respectively. The printing orders were faithfully executed by the respondent firm, which thereafter sent its bills, but the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab, refused to pay the same on the ground that they were exorbitant and that the respondent firm should bill them according to the scheduled rates instead of the tender rate. Ultimately on 23‑5‑1977 the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab, requested the respondent firm to reduce its bills, which the latter did by reducing the same to Rs.57,2'00 and Rs.54,340 respectively. On 23‑5‑1977 the respondent firm wrote to the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab, that as a mark of good gesture they had reduced the bill, which had not been appreciated by the Department as they had not paid the same and that in case the payment of their revised bills dated 23‑5‑1977 was not made within seven days of the receipt of their letter, the said revised bills would stand cancelled and they would be legally entitled to claim payment of their original bills, for recovery of which they would be constrained to file a suit. The payments not having been made even according to the revised bills, the respondent firm instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs.2,17,460 being their original claim, acknowledging that it had only been paid Rs.22,576.84 against the same. The Civil Court allowed the claim of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.1,46,500 holding that it was estopped from claiming the total amount of Rs.2,17,460 by submitting its revised bills. After deducting the payment made by the Government, decree for Rs.1,23,923.16 was granted in favour of the respondent firm. The respondent firm thereupon appealed for the balance amount, which appeal was rejected by a learned Additional District Judge of Lahore by his judgment dated 2‑11‑1986. The respondent firm thereupon preferred a second appeal, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 3‑6‑1989. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a direct appeal to this Court, which is now before us for disposal. The appellant also filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the High Court for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3‑6‑1989, which application was dismissed by the same learned Single Judge on 21‑1‑1990. Being aggrieved against the said order, the appellant petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, which petition is also before us in motion hearing.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent‑firm in both the appeal and the petition and have also perused the record. The main question in appeal is whether the respondent firm was entitled to receive payment in accordance with its original bills, after having reduced the same on 23‑5‑1977. We have examined the two reduced bills dated 23‑5‑1977, which really happen to be the original bills, but on which I amendments have been made reducing the amounts to Rs.57,200 and Rs.54,340 respectively. The said revised bills and the covering letter dated 23‑5‑1977 with which they were sent, do not contain any condition that they have to be paid by a particular period and, if not, any particular consequences will follow. In these circumstances, the reduction of the two bills, therefore, appears to be unconditional and not subject to any condition. Later letter of the respondent‑firm dated 14‑6‑1977 intimating to the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Punjab, that in case the payment of the revised bills was not made within seven days of the receipt of their letter, their revised bills would stand cancelled and they would be legally entitled to claim the amount stated in the original bills cannot change the unconditional nature of the reductions made in the previous bills. The view to the contrary taken by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court does not appear to be legal and correct in the circumstances and deserves to be set aside.

4. For the foregoing reasons, we accept civil appeal CA. 485/89, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 3‑6‑1989 and restore that of the Civil judge and the Additional District Judge dated 30‑9‑1986 and 1‑3‑1987 respectively. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. In view of the above civil petition C.P. 485/90 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. AA./P‑229/S Appeal accepted.