Page No.# 1/19 GAHC030006842024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/40/2024 The Blue Hill Engineer r/b its team leader, Dr. R. Lalthlamuana Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Lalnunthara Mission Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates For the Appellant : Mr. Jordan Ronhmingthanga For the sole respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Date of Hearing : 21.10.2025 Date of Judgment : 28.10.2025 Page No.# 2/19 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard learned counsel, Mr. Jordan Ronhmingthanga for the appellant. Also heard learned counsel, Mr. T Lalnunsiama appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The present appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 has been preferred against the Judgment, Order & Decree dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-2 Aizawl District, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2020. 3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in the Civil Suit 30 of 2020 was that the plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant to execute a work for Construction of Girder Bridge (known as Aizawl Lei) at Upper Khatla, Aizawl, Mizoram. The defendant had been allotted a work for construction of Girder Bridge at Upper Khatla Aizawl at a total cost of Rs. 222 Lakhs. On such allotment, the defendant had contacted the plaintiff to engage him for carrying out the construction. However, they could not have a settlement with regard to the price of cost of the construction. On 18.03.2018, the defendant offered the said construction work to the plaintiff through a phone call and requested him to undertake the work and offered a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and forty lakhs) only for the said construction. The plaintiff told the defendant that Rs. 1,40,00,000/- would not be enough for such a huge construction and ask him to raise the sum. Thereafter the defendant offered another Rs. 10,00,000/- Page No.# 3/19 (Rupees ten lakhs) only for erection of work taking the total sum to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and fifty lakhs) only. The offer was thereafter accepted by the plaintiff and he agreed to do the construction of the said work for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The plaintiff started the construction and he tried his level best for speedy completion of the work working day and night. There was no written contract/agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. However existence of WhatsApp conversation between the parties and photograph of the construction work enclosed by the plaintiff would go to show that there was an existence of contract between the parties. 4. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant had paid certain bills/costs of the work to the plaintiff in installments. However, ultimately the total sum paid to the plaintiff for the construction of Girder Bridge was only Rs. 1,01,50,000/- (Rupees one crore one lakh fifty thousand) leaving a balance of Rs. 48,50,000/- (Rupees forty eight lakhs fifty thousand) only. 5. The plaintiff also stated that when 99.90% of the Girder Bridge work was completed by him, the defendant asked the plaintiff to leave the construction work and offered another work i.e., Sazek Bridge Strengthening Work at Rajiv Nagar, Mamit District, Mizoram. The defendant accepted the said offer and left the construction of Girder Bridge at Upper Khatla. 6. The plaintiff again verbally agreed to carry out the Sazek Bridge Strengthening Work. And it was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the said strengthening work was to be executed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rupees 150/- per kg. (iron). The plaintiff again started the work at Sazek Bridge but when 90% of the work was completed, severe flood stopped Page No.# 4/19 him from finishing the work. The defendant paid him Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only by way of cheque. However the defendant without proper reason again asked the plaintiff to leave the Sazek Bridge work leaving a balance of Rs. 6,08,465/- to be paid to the plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff further contented that the defendant without proper reason terminated the verbal contract made with the plaintiff on two occasions as stated above and the plaintiff suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses severely affecting his business and the total amount due to the defendant is Rs. 54,58,465/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred and sixty- five) only. Despite several requests and demands, the defendant did not compensate the loss suffered by the plaintiff and instead the defendant informed the plaintiff that he had engaged him as a Work Manager for the above construction and denied their contract. 8. The plaintiff respondent therefore filed the civil suit registered as Civil Suit No. 30 of 2020 praying for a decree declaring that the defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 54,58,465/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred and sixty-five) only and other consequential reliefs. 9. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendant by filing his written statement. By filing written statement, the appellants/defendant maintained that the alleged contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was not executed. The appellants/defendant also stated that no amount of money is recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant. It was stated that the appellant defendant was awarded two contract works by the Public Works Department. One was the construction of Girder Bridge ‘Aizawl Lei’ and the other was the Strengthening of Page No.# 5/19 Sazek Bridge at Mamit, District. The nature of work demanded that the workers and the major part of the construction materials would have to be collected from outside of Mizoram. The defendant/appellants therefore needed a considerable number of Field Assistants or Interpreters for procuring the construction equipments and worker to execute the work. The defendant did not require any sub-Contractor to execute his work but he needed a work manager who would collect construction materials and seek workers from outside of Mizoram and coordinate with the workers. The plaintiff had work experience in Steel Fabrication and he had a working knowledge of hindi and bengali. Therefore, the defendant was of the view that the plaintiff would be employed as a manager who should seek and search for labourers and workers from among non-Mizos as well as Mizos. The defendants also felt that the plaintiff would be reliable to buy raw materials, construction equipments and mobilization of workers. 10. The appellant respondent also stated that the plaintiff was not capable of being engaged as a sub-Contractor because he did not have proper knowledge regarding the work without the supervision of engineers and other experts. Moreover the appellant defendant did not need any sub-Contractor because his firm ‘The Blue Hill Engineer’ alone could undertake the work and therefore, the defendant’s firm had no intention of executing any written contract with any sub-Contractor and it only needed laborers and workers and a Field Assistant/Manager who could mobilize the laborers and look after the work. 11. The defendant has not denied that there was an oral agreement with the plaintiff to the extent that the defendant firm would give money to the plaintiff for the cost of expenditures periodically after every particular work was done Page No.# 6/19 and it would be the duty of the plaintiff to spend that amount given by the defendant for buying materials and for paying the salaries of laborers. It was also agreed after work was completed 10% of the estimated amount of the work completed by the plaintiff would be his share. 12. The defendant in the written statement denied that the work order for Girder Bridge Construction at Upper Khatla Aizawl was for a total cost of Rs. 222 Lakhs. It was stated that the work was allotted to the defendant and the plaintiff was merely employed to look after the construction and the following terms were agreed between the parties: (i) Total steel requirements for the Bridge Construction = 141.90 ton. (ii) Steel requirements of Bridge = 83464.340 kg. Stiffeners, additional gusset plates etc. = 16692.868 kg. Total = 100157.208 kg or 100.157 ton. (iii) Scaffoldings, supports etc. = 41.74 ton. The defendant stated that the total value of the contract was calculated in terms of ton and the whole work was estimated at 141.90 ton with a value of Rs. 1,48,99,074.30/- (Rupees One crore forty eight lakhs ninety nine thousand seventy four). It was stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants company to manage and complete the work only with his labourers and workers up to 100.157 ton for the construction of the bridge only by using all the materials provided by the defendant firm and the remaining 41.74 ton was the supporting materials belonging exclusively to the defendant firm. 13. The written statement also contended that it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would use all the materials belonging to the defendant Page No.# 7/19 and 10% of the estimated amount of the plaintiff’s work would be his remuneration. The plaintiff did not have any materials, steel etc. of his own as he was engaged merely as a manager to look after the construction. All the materials needed for the construction including the salaries of workers were provided by the defendant and the plaintiff’s duty and assignment was only to buy and collect the materials and pay the salaries to the workers. The defendant gave money to the plaintiff by cheque or Bank account transfer anytime when the materials for construction and salaries for the workers were needed. 14. The written statement also reflected that the value of all the work completed by the plaintiff was calculated to be Rs. 96,39,774.57/- (Rupees ninety six lakhs thirty nine thousand seven hundred and seventy four) i.e., 91.81 ton x by Rs. 104,997/-. And that the defendant had paid the plaintiff Rs. 1,01,50,000/- (Rupees one crore one lakh fifty thousand) which was more than 10% of the amount of work completed by the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff had been paid in excess. 15. In respect of the second work i.e Sezak Bridge, it was stated in the written statement that the defendant had offered the plaintiff to manage and do the work only if the plaintiff was willing to take the rate offered by the defendant i.e., Rs. 80/- per Kg of iron. The plaintiff did not indicate any acceptance of this rate offered by the defendant. However, the plaintiff simply started the work without making any proper acceptance to this rate. Even for this particular work the defendant provided the materials for the work and it was the job of the plaintiff to manage and execute the work. Even in this Sezak Bridge work the plaintiff was an employee and not a sub-Contractor. The plaintiff left the work without completing it and the work was continued by some other agents. Page No.# 8/19 However the defendant calculated the work which was already undertaken and finished by the plaintiff including his small contribution of materials and it was estimated to be Rs. 3,00,000/-. Therefore the defendant paid the estimated amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant has no pending dues towards the plaintiff. 16. The defendants also stated that no pecuniary or non pecuniary loss was caused to the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff has all along received his 10% share every time he was given money by the defendant for the construction. 17. The Trial Court after taking the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff/respondent vide Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2024 by ordering that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 54,58,465/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred and sixty five) only from the defendant within 3(three) months of the order. Further the defendant was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as cost of the suit. Being aggrieved, the appellants/defendant has filed the present RFA. 18. The Trial Court framed four issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff is a sub-Contractor under the defendant or just a work Manager? 3. If the plaintiff is a sub-Contractor under the defendant, whether the work of sub-contract was pre-maturely terminated? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? If so, to what extend? Page No.# 9/19 The learned Trial Court upon examination of the evidence decided the issues in favor of the plaintiff. Grounds of appeal 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to prove the fact that he was engaged as a sub- Contractor for the construction work for Aizawl lei and for Sazek Bridge. And the learned Trial Court decided the issue No. 2 in favor of the plaintiff based on no evidence apart from the averments made by the plaintiff that he was engaged as a sub-Contractor. And at the same time, recording the fact that no evidence was produced by both the parties regarding the salary of the plaintiff as manager. 20. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the screenshots of WhatsApp conversations between the parties annexed in the plaint does not in any manner prove or indicate the nature of engagement of the plaintiff by the defendant. Another ground taken by the appellant is that the weakness of the defendant cannot be a justification to decree the suit specially, when the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof as mandated by Section 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. Another ground is that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendant did not have the authority to sub-contract as the PWD does not allow the same without their express consent. 22. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the PWs had made no averments to the effect that the plaintiff was engaged as a Page No.# 10/19 sub-Contractor or that they had knowledge about any agreement for sub- Contracting between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In fact, the PWs categorically stated that the construction work at Aizawl Lei and Sezak Bridge were Doctor Lalthlamuama’s/defendant’s work. 23. The learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate if there was any breach of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff could not have so easily left the construction site at Aizawl Lei for executing the work at another site at the instruction of the defendant. Thus, from the first construction, the plaintiff’s nature of employment as a Manager/Assistant under the defendant was clear and unambiguous. 24. The Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial Court had erroneously decided issue No.3 in favor of the plaintiff without appreciating the fact that for premature termination of contract, the existence and relationship of a contractor and sub-Contractor ought to have been first established and then proceed in accordance with law along with the terms of such alleged contract. But this burden was not at all discharged by the plaintiff. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Trial Court had erroneously decided issue No. 4 in favor of the plaintiff without appreciating the fact that no evidence at all was ever brought on record by the plaintiff to substantiate as to how an amount of Rs. 54,58,465/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs fifty eight thousand four hundred and sixty five) only was due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the burden of proving the fact that an amount of Rs. 54,58,465/- was due and payable to the plaintiff was on him and the same was not discharged, apart Page No.# 11/19 from the bald averments made in the plaint. No other evidence, much less corroborative evidence or admission was produced by the plaintiff and no admission was made by the defendant. Thus the standard of preponderance of probabilities was wrongly invoked as no material evidence was led by the plaintiff. It is further submitted by the appellant that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that without any evidence being led by the plaintiff the question of assessing a non existent fact on the standard of preponderance of probabilities could not have arisen and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed as “not proved” specially when the existence of an agreement for a total amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for construction work at Aizawl Lei and the alleged rate of Rupees 150/- per kg for the construction work at Sazek Bridge was never proved by the plaintiff through evidence. It is well settled that the proof is incumbent on the one who affirms not on the one who denies. Learned counsel has relied on the cases of: i) ADIVEPPA AND OTHERS Versus BHIMAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in (2017) 9 SCC 586 ii) ANIL RISHI Versus GURBAKSH SINGH reported in (2006) 5 SCC 558 iii) LEGAL HEIRS SMT. RENUSHREE LAHKAR & ORS VS. PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR & ORS reported in 2018 (4) GLT 733 Arguments of the respondent/plaintiff 26. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has not disputed the fact that there is no written agreement between the parties. However, he has submitted that the present case is a civil case and not a criminal case and therefore the principle of strict liability i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Page No.# 12/19 27. Learned counsel also refers to the cross examination of the plaintiff as PW1, wherein the PW1 denied the suggestion that the defendant has fully paid the cost of work done by him. Learned counsel has also submitted that the total value of the work order regarding the construction of Girder Bridge at Upper Khatla was Rs. 222 Lakhs (Rupees two cores twenty two lakhs) and therefore the oral agreement between the parties for payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and fifty lakhs) to the plaintiff was reasonable. Learned counsel has categorically argued that on 18.03.2018, the defendant appellant had offered the construction work of Girder Bridge at Upper Khatla to the plaintiff respondents through phone call and offered a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and forty lakhs) for the said construction. In response the plaintiff respondent told the appellant defendant that Rs. 1,40,00,000/- would be too less for such a huge contraction and asked him to raise the amount. Thereafter, the defendant appellant offered another Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten Lakhs) which would made for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The offer was therefore accepted by the plaintiff and he agreed to do the construction work for a total sum of 1,50,00,000/-. Learned counsel also submits that regarding the second work i.e. Sazek Bridge it was verbally agreed between parties that the construction works would be executed by the plaintiff respondent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per kg of iron. It is also submitted that the plaintiff respondent completed 99.90% of the construction of Girder Bridge at Upper Khatla and 90% of construction of Sazek Bridge at Rajiv Nagar, Mamit District. 28. Learned counsel has also submitted that inspite of the fact that the defendant appellant was such a big firm, he examined only three witnesses, i.e. the defendant himself as DW1, one Shri Lallawmkima, as DW2 and the wife of the defendant as DW3. Learned counsel submits that none of the DWs knew Page No.# 13/19 anything about the oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and in fact the DW3/wife of the defendant deposed in her cross examination that the construction had commenced prior to her getting married with the defendant. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant defendant in his pleadings claimed that he had paid excess amount to the plaintiff respondent but he had not done anything to recover the same which shows that the statement regarding the excess payment is false. He also submits that the contention of the plaintiff regarding the agreement for an amount of 1,50,00,000/- has not been contradicted or refuted in the defendant’s evidence. 29. Learned counsel further submits that the PWs were not cross examined properly with respect to the amount which was still due to be repaid to the plaintiff. Relying on the case of MUDDASANI VENKATA NARSAIAH Versus MUDDASANI SAROJANA reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288, learned counsel submits that the Apex Court in the aforementioned case held that cross examination is a matter of substance and not of procedure and one is required to put one’s own version in cross examination of opponent. The effect of non cross examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. Therefore there being no effective cross examination of the PWs, the effect would be that the PWs depositions has not been disputed. 30. Learned counsel also submits that Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that all facts may be proved by oral evidence and therefore even in the present case, even in the absence of documentary evidence, the oral evidence of the PWs could not be rebutted by the defendant and therefore the suit has been rightly decreed in favor of the plaintiff by the learned Trial Court and therefore he prays that this Court may not interfere in the Impugned Judgment Page No.# 14/19 and Decree dated 27.08.2024 in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2020. Points for Determination (i) Whether the plaintiff/respondent was a sub-Contractor under the appellant/defendant or a work manager. (ii) Whether the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to the relief claimed, if so to what extent. Discussion and Decision 31. The Court has duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and has perused the Trial Courts records specifically the evidence adduced by the parties. 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi (Supra) and also in the case of Adiveppa (Supra) has categorically decided that it is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleading and adequate evidence (Oral and Documentary) in support thereof. The court also held that the initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under: “101. Burden of proof- whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bond to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of prove lies on that person.” Page No.# 15/19 33. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Legal heirs Smti Renushree (Supra) also held that the plaintiff has to succeed on his own strength, or in other words when the plaintiff brings a suit asserting certain facts and seeks relief on the basis of such assertion, the burden lies with the plaintiff to prove such facts and such burden never shifts. The plaintiff cannot bank upon the weakness of the defendant. 34. The plaintiff examined 3(three) witnesses namely, himself as PW1, his worker Shri Anowar Hussain as PW2 and another worker Shri Jubair Ahmed as PW3. The PW1/plaintiff on being cross examined admitted that he did not have any written agreement with the defendant. He also admitted that on 17.11.2018 he was expelled from the work. PW1 also admitted in his cross examination that there was no written agreement in respect of Sazek Bridge Construction also. In his cross examination the PW1/plaintiff admitted that he did not complete the Sazek Bridge Construction but he had claimed that he had completed 90% of the work. The PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he did not know about any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. He also admitted that the construction of Aizawl Lei and the Sazek Bridge were the defendants work. The PW3 in his cross examination also admitted that he did not know what kind of agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant. He also admitted that the construction of Aizawl Lei was the work of the defendant. In his cross examination, he disposed that according to his understanding, the plaintiff had taken the work from the defendant as sub-Contractor. 35. The defendant/appellant also examined 3(three) witnesses, i.e., defendant himself as DW1, his worker Shri Lallawmkima as DW2 and his wife as DW3. The DW1/Defendant in his cross examination stated that he did not pay monthly Page No.# 16/19 salary to the plaintiff, however he was paid 10% out of the completed work amount. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff performed 99.9% of the construction work, he also denied the suggestion that he had engaged the plaintiff for the Sazek bridge construction at the rate of Rs. 150/- kg and further denied that the plaintiff completed 90% of the Sazek Bridge work. The DW1/Defendant also denied the suggestion that while contacting the plaintiff he proposed for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and forty lakhs). He also denied the suggestion that since the plaintiff did not accept the proposal he agreed to give him a bonus of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs). DW1 further denied the suggestion that he has liabilities amounting to Rs. 48.5 lakhs to the plaintiff for Aizawl Lei and Rs. 6,08,465/- (Rupees six lakhs eight thousand four hundred and sixty-five), for Sazek Bridge. The DW3 in her cross examination deposed that the plaintiff was employed by her husband as an interpreter and he was given 10% of the work completed by him. The DW3 also deposed that the plaintiff was given money by way of cash, bank transfer and cheque by the defendant. 36. The DW1/defendant in his Examination-In-Chief had contended that the plaintiff did not contribute any materials and all the materials needed for the construction including salaries of workers were provided by the defendant. He deposed that the defendant gave money to the plaintiff by way of cheque and by bank account transfer any time when any materials for the construction salaries for the workers’ was needed. The DW1/ Defendant also deposed that the value of the work completed by the plaintiff was calculated to be Rs. 96,39,774.57/- (91.81 ton X Rs. 10,4997/-) and he also deposed that he had given the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 1,01,50,000/- (Rupees one crore one lakh fifty thousand) in installments as 10% of the amount of work completed by the Page No.# 17/19 plaintiff which was in fact an excess payment. The DW-1 also deposed in his examination-in-chief that there was no written contract between the parties and that he was the contractor and he did not have any sub-Contractor. Moreover the plaintiff was merely employed as a Manager-cum-Apprentice in his work, but he was found to be disloyal and therefore he was dismissed from the work. He had further deposed that the major part of the construction materials and the workers had to be collected from outside of Mizoram and therefore he required field assistants who may be termed as managers or interpreters. He did not need any sub-Contractor but needed a manager who would collect construction materials and interpret with workers from outside Mizoram. This Court has observed that none of the above depositions have been rebutted by the plaintiff during cross examination. 37. Upon appreciating the evidence on record we come to point No. 1 for determination. It has been established by the evidence that the there was no written agreement between the parties. The plaintiff respondent could not prove that he was a sub-Contractor. It is seen from the evidence that all the expenditure for the construction materials as well as the salaries of the workers was being borne by the defendant. Moreover if the plaintiff was a sub- Contractor there would have been a proper agreement between the parties and the defendant would not have been able to dismiss him from the work without any notice. The evidence of the DW1 to the effect that the plaintiff was engaged as a sort of Manager-cum-Interpreter has not been demolished in the cross examination. In fact this evidence of the DW1/Appellant has been corroborated by the DW3 who deposed in her cross examination that the plaintiff was employed by her husband as an interpreter and the plaintiff was paid 10% of the work completed by him as a salary. She also corroborated the evidence of Page No.# 18/19 DW1 by deposing that all the materials for the construction including the salaries of workers were provided by the defendant. From the evidence as examined above it is clear that the plaintiff respondent has not been able to prove that he was a sub-Contractor and therefore point No.1 is decided in the negative, against the plaintiff/respondent. 38. Regarding point No.2 for determination it is the view of this Court after analyzing the evidence that the plaintiff/respondent has not been able to prove that there was any unpaid amount due to him in respect of the construction of Girder Bridge Upper Khatla or for the work at Sazek Bridge. In fact the plaintiff respondent has not adduced any evidence before the Trial Court to prove that there were any unpaid amount due to him to be paid by the defendant/appellant. On the other hand, the evidence of the DW1 to the effect that the plaintiff was paid an amount of Rs. 1,01,50,000/- (Rupees one crore one lakh fifty thousand), which was more than 10% of the amount of work completed by the plaintiff has not been rebutted by the plaintiff. The question of analyzing the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities would arise only when there is evidence. In the present case the plaintiff/respondent has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim. In fact the plaintiff has not discharged the initial burden in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. In the result, the plaintiff/respondent has not been able to prove that he is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him and therefore point No.2 is also decided in the negative, and in favor of the defendant/appellant. 39. For the reasons mentioned above, the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2024 is quashed and set aside and the appeal is allowed. Page No.# 19/19 40. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeal stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant