2021 PLP 92 (YLRN)

ALI BAIG. J.

This civil first appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 20.08.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Skardu whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit of present respondent No.1/plaintiff in his favour and against the present appellants. Succinctly facts necessary for disposal of the instant civil first appeal are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter called as respondent No.1) had instituted the suit for recovery of an amount amounting to Rs,79,01682/- with 21 % interest from institution of suit till final satisfaction of decree against the present appellants/defendants (hereinafter called as appellants) in trial court claiming therein that the respondent No.1 was awarded contract for construction of PTDC Motel at Stak Roundu vide contract No.Engg/5012196 dated 20/06/96 being the lowest bidder. Accordingly the respondent No.1 had started construction of PTDC Motel at Stak as per start order issued by the appellants through Exh.P/1 dated 20/08/96 but later on the respondent No.1 was informed vide letter dated 25.08.97 by the appellants stating therein that the construction work of PTDC Motel has been suspended by the Ministry of Tourism due to non-availability of funds and accordingly the construction work of PTDC Motel Stak was suspended till 2004. On 24.05.2004 the appellants vide letter dated 24.05.2004 directed to respondent No.1 to restart the remaining construction work of PTDC Motel Stak. To meet the losses of suspended period the appellants revised contract through an amended agreement Exh.D12 through which the remaining works are disclosed under clause (4) and contract price fixed Rs.5.967/- million with 30% above on the quoted rates. Consequently, the respondent No.1 has completed the remaining construction work awarded him through amended agreement amounting to Rs.1,40,58,682/-but appellants paid only Rs.63,00000/- out of total bill to the respondent No.1 and an amount amounting to Rs. 77,58,682/- is outstanding against the appellants along with Rs.143000/- amount of 10% security. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed the suit for recovery of total amount amounting to Rs.79,01,682/- with 20% interest in the trial court. The present appellants being defendants in the suit have appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by filing written statement in the learned trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments of the plaint by pleading/ asserting that respondent No.1 has furnished wrong statement of dues as the appellants have paid all outstanding bills of work done to the respondent No.1 but final bill Rs.50,000/- is liable to be paid to the respondent No.1. Out of divergent pleading of the parties, the learned trial court has framed as many as 10 issues including of relief. After framing of issues both the parties produced their respective oral and documentary evidence in support of their claims and on conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 29/08/2017 has decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent No.1 for recovery of an amount amounting to Rs.79,01,682 against the present appellants and prayer of 21% interest has not acceded to by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court the present appellants have filed the instant civil first appeal in this Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by learned trial court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties, therefore, the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the respondent No.1 by adducing cogent and reliable oral and documentary evidence has proved his case/claim in the learned trial court and appellants have miserably failed to rebut the unimpeachable oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further contended that as per amended agreement the respondent No.1 has completed the construction of PTDC Motel at Stak Roundu and has handed over the building to the appellants but appellants have failed to pay disputed/outstanding amount to respondent No.1, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1and against the appellants which may be maintained in the interest of justice. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties and with their able assistance we have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly the contract for construction of PTDC Motel at Stak Roundu was awarded to respondent No.1 by the present appellants vide contract agreement dated 20/06/96 and the said contract agreement was later on amended through Exh.D/2. From perusal of record it transpires that present respondent No.1 has proved his claim by producing unimpeachable oral and documentary and respondent No.1 has also produced documentary evidence Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/23 which are authentic documents. We have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent No.1 and found that Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/23 are public and authentic documents and the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the oral and documentary evidence produced by present respondent No.1. The learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment/decree after proper evaluating of both oral and documentary evidence of both the parties adduced in the learned trial court and has arrived at correct and just conclusion. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out neither any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment/decree nor point out any mis-reading and non-reading of evidence by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment/decree. Therefore, we have come to conclusion that the learned trial court has arrived at correct and fair conclusion while passing of impugned judgment/decree. In view of the above discussion, the instant civil first appeal is being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed and impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court dated 29/08/2017 is maintained as learned trial court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgment/decree rather the impugned judgment/decree is based on proper appraisal of evidence then the same cannot be interfered in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court. This civil first appeal is disposed of accordingly, File. MH/143/GB Appeal dismissed.