R.S.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.1.2009
Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar and others
....Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chand
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate,
for the appellants.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment
and decree dated 10.4.2007 and 4.12.2008 passed by the learned
Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for
recovery of an amount stands decreed.
The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- on the ground of supply of goods to the Municipal
Committee against which payment was said to have not been made.
In support of this contention, the plaintiff produced on record
the bills as well as details of the goods supplied to the Municipal
Committee as also the total amount received.
The case of the plaintiff was that the total goods supplied
were worth Rs.4,23,457.78 paise out of which a sum of Rs.3,07,651.48
paise had been received, thus leaving a balance of Rs.1,15,806.30
paise as on 31.3.1998.
The suit was contested wherein a plea was taken that the
R.S.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
stock as claimed was not supplied to the Municipal Committee as the
same was not entered in the stock register of the appellant/defendant.
The plea of the suit being time barred was also taken.
The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that
the plaintiff was entitled to amount claimed along with interest @ 18%
per annum. Issue No. 3 regarding suit being time barred was not
pressed.
In the appeal, however, a stand was taken that the plea of the
limitation was question of law and, therefore, the Court was bound to
decide the question of limitation also.
The learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar,
considered the evidence brought on record showing that the last
payment was made on 3.4.1994, therefore, it was held that the suit
having been filed within two years of said date was within the period of
limitation.
The plea of the appellant/defendant that the supplies were not
made as per provisions of Section 50 of the Municipal Act has been
rejected. Reasons given for rejecting this plea by the learned lower
appellate Courts read as under: –
“Mere this fact that the provisions of Section 50 of the
Municipal Act have not been followed is no ground to
non suit the plaintiff because the appellants/Municipal
Council has received the electric goods from the
plaintiff even though the contract for supply of the
goods does not fulfil the requirement of Section 50 of
the Municipal Act and is invalid on that account, but,
as the goods have been voluntarily accepted by the
appellants-Municipal Council, plainitff is entitled for
the recovery of the value thereof as per Section 65
and 70 of the Indian Contract Act. To support this
view reference can be made to case State of West
Bengal Vs. M/s B.K. Mondal and Sons, A.I.R. 1962
S.C. 779.
Then, there is a direct authority of our Hon’ble High
Court titled as Deputy Chand Goyal Vs. Municipal
Committee, Meham, 1993(2) R.R.R. 202. In that
R.S.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M)
-3-
case plainitff was a contractor. He entered into a
contract with the municipal committee for
construction of some work. He completed the work
as per the work order. Running payment of
Rs.2500/- was made by the defendant-Municipal
Committee and he filed the suit for the recovery of
the remaining amount. In the written statement it was
pleaded that the agreement was not executed in
accordance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1911 (This Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1911 is analogues to Section 50 of the Haryana
Municipal Act, 1973). Taking note of the legal
position Hon’ble High Court has laid down as under: –
There is no denying the fact that no valid agreement
has come into existence as contemplated by Section
47 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Resolution of the
Municipal Committee Exhibit P-13 authorising the
President to invite for tenders and execution of the
work as per work orders Exhibits P-3 to P-6 by the
plainitff cannot constitute a valid contract, but all the
same it cannot be lost sight of that the plaintiff
executed the work in pursuance of the Resolution of
the Municipal Committee Exhibit P13 and is entitled
to compensation in terms of Section 65 of the Indian
Contract Act. Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act
reads as under: –
65. Obligation of person who has received advantage
under void agreement or contract that becomes void.
When an agreement is discovered to be void, or
when a contract becomes void, any person who has
received any advantage under such agreement or
contract is bound to restore it or to make
compensation for it, to the person from whom, he
received it.
Thus when an agreement is discovered to be void or
becomes a void any person who has taken
advantage under such agreement or contract is
bound to restore it or give compensation for the
same. Similarly Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act
envisages awarding of compensation to a person
who has done anything for another and who did not
intend to do so gratuitously.”
It is pertinent to mention here that though in the bills, the
plaintiff had claimed that interest @ 18% would be charged on delayed
payment and learned trial Court accepted the claim of interest.
The learned appellate Court taking into consideration, the
present rate of interest reduced the interest to 12%. the finding
recorded on other issues was affirmed.
R.S.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M)
-4-
The learned counsel for appellants contends that following
substantial questions of law arise in present appeal: –
“1. Whether contract executed in violation of
Section 50 of the Haryana Municipal Act, could
be enforced?
2. Whether learned Courts below erred in drawing
adverse inference, even though record i.e. stock
register was produced in Court?”
The first substantial question of law does not arise as the
learned Courts below rightly rejected the plea and the findings recorded
are as per settled law.
The second question of law as framed does not arise as
admittedly the stock register was not proved, thus could not be read in
evidence.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
January 19, 2009
R.S.