Contract for construction

2017 CLC 896 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 2Money suitContract for constructionClaim for payment of escalation in price of materialScopePlaintiffs being government contractors completed construction work

Provincial Government due to high rise in the prices of building material gave relief package to the contractors but plaintiffs were not given the said relief

Plaintiffs filed suit for payment of "escalation amount" but same was dismissed

Validity

Provincial Government had issued notification for payment of escalation amount to the contractors as per schedule of rates for the year 1999 due to increase in the prices of building materials

Both the courts below had failed to appreciate and interpret the said notification in its true perspective

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Plaintiffs had a cause of action and locus standi who were deprived from the relief in the shape of payment of escalation amount

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was decreed along with profit at the rate of 6% to be calculated by the Trial Court

Plaintiffs were directed to deposit court fee according to decretal amount calculated during final decree

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2016 YLR 1687 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 2 & O.VIII, R.4Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 19Money suitAcknowledgementLimitationContract for constructionEvasive denialEffectPlaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount on account of work done but same was dismissedValidityDefendants had admitted the award of contract and completion of work done by the contractorWritten statement was based on evasive denial which would amount to an admission on the part of defendantsTrial Court had not decided the "lis" with conscious and application of independent mindImpugned judgment was deficient of reasonsDefendants were not willing to pay the amount without any justificationDefendants had nothing to say in their defence about the claim made by the plaintiffAward had been issued in favour of plaintiff whereby he was declared entitled to get the outstanding amountDefendants had not disputed the award or the claim of plaintiff outstanding against themPlaintiff kept on requesting for paymentLimitation had to be reckoned from the request of plaintiff and correspondence but not from the date of award

Such correspondence and asking for arrangement of the funds would amount to acknowledgement which would give rise to the fresh starting point to the plaintiff

Claim of plaintiff could not be refused on the ground of limitation

Plaintiff had to be awarded the amount with regard to the work done for construction which had not been denied by the defendants

Impugned judgment was set aside and decree was passed to the tune of Rs.16,91,025.22 along with interest/profit at the prevailing market rate which should be recovered from the delinquent officers who were responsible for the unnecessary delay in payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.