Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3940 (HP)

Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Bisht

2025-12-05

Romesh Verma

body2025
JUDGMENT : ROMESH VERMA, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 6.6.2018, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been partly decreed and the respondent/plaintiff has been held entitled for recovery of Rs. 20,61,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till the date of filing of the suit and also future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of entre amount. 2. The facts, which emerge in the case, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- against the appellant/defendant i.e. M/s Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director. It was averred in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff is a contractor and he undertakes civil construction for various departments of the government as also for private organizations. The appellant/defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in constructing Sorang Hydro Power Project in District Kinnaur. It was averred that the respondent/plaintiff had been awarded works relating to construction of right abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 mtr. to 0.1830 mtr. of the Sorang HEP (100 MW) in District Kinnaur by the appellant/defendant- company vide letter of award dated 4.1.2007. The said works were required by the appellant/defendant for the purposes of the Sorang Hydro Power Project being set up by it. It was further averred that the respondent/plaintiff got executed the works under the supervision and control of M/s SSJV Projects Pvt Ltd., another company also incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, which company was also preparing the bills for the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff and also arranging payment of the bills for the work done. It was further averred that the respondent/plaintiff completed the work awarded to him to the entire satisfaction of the appellant/defendant in June 2008. 3. The final measurements in respect of the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff were also done by M/s SSJV in December 2009 and a bill on the basis of the measurements so recorded was also prepared but no payment against the same was made to the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The final measurements in respect of the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff were also done by M/s SSJV in December 2009 and a bill on the basis of the measurements so recorded was also prepared but no payment against the same was made to the respondent/plaintiff. The measurements so recorded were also not correct on the basis of the actual work done by the respondent/plaintiff, which had been got measured by him and even measurements were also sent to the appellant/defendant, therefore, the actual amount still payable to the respondent/plaintiff comes to Rs.20,61,045/-. The respondent/plaintiff averred that after completion of the work, he had been requesting the appellant/defendant to make payment, but the appellant/defendant was putting off the respondent/plaintiff on one pretext or the other, which led to issuance of legal notice to the appellant/defendant through his counsel on 15.12.2011 but the payment was still not made to the respondent/plaintiff. He averred that alongwith principal amount, he is also entitled to interest and cost of legal notice and total amount payable is Rs. 29,08,470/-. However, he restricted his claim for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The respondent/plaintiff also submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit against the appellant/defendant accrued to the respondent/plaintiff first when the works were awarded to the respondent/plaintiff, then again on the completion of the said works in June 2008, then again when the works executed by the respondent/plaintiff were evaluated on behalf of the appellant/defendant by recording the measurements for the same and preparing a bill on the basis of the said measurements during December 2009, and thereafter, again when the notice dated 15.12.2011 was served on the appellant/defendant and the cause of action is still continuing. Therefore, he prayed that the suit be decreed for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest pendent lite and further @ 18% per annum and costs of suit in his favour and against the defendant. 4. The aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant/defendant on various grounds such as maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation and concealment of material facts. 5. The appellant/defendant denied all the averments as made in the plaint and stated that the respondent/plaintiff was never awarded work relating to the construction of right abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 to 0.1830 mtr. 5. The appellant/defendant denied all the averments as made in the plaint and stated that the respondent/plaintiff was never awarded work relating to the construction of right abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 to 0.1830 mtr. of the Sorang HEP (100 MW) in District Kinnaur by the appellant/defendant. It was submitted that the appellant/defendant-company allotted all the road and bridge construction work to M/S SSJV Project Pvt. Ltd vide letter dated 18.1.2008 and all the payments with respect to the said work were released to the above said company. The appellant/defendant submitted that they have got no concern with the respondent/plaintiff as the respondent/plaintiff had received his payment from M/s. SSJV Projects Ltd. as being its subcontractor. It was denied that the work was awarded by the appellant/defendant company and that final measurement was done by M/s SSJV Projects Ltd. in December 2009. The appellant/defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 6. The respondent/plaintiff filed replication to the written statement as filed by the appellant/defendant reiterating therein the averments as contained in the plaint and specifically denied the averments contrary to what has been averred in the plaint. 7. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of pleadings of the parties on 4.3.2016 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% P.A., as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his acts, conduct, omission, commission, acquiescence etc.? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. 8. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, learned court below partly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, as aforesaid, vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.2018 necessitating the appellant/defendant to file the instant appeal. 9. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has mainly argued that the letter dated 4.1.2007, Ext.PW1/B was obtained by the respondent/plaintiff by fraud and no reliance can be placed upon the same. 9. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has mainly argued that the letter dated 4.1.2007, Ext.PW1/B was obtained by the respondent/plaintiff by fraud and no reliance can be placed upon the same. Secondly, she has contended that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation, therefore, straightway suit ought to have been dismissed as having been filed beyond the period of limitation. Thirdly, she has urged that the suit, as filed by the respondent/plaintiff, is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Lastly, she contended that the Court below has misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 10. On the other hand, Mr. J. S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal and Ms. Srishti Verma, Advocates, appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has defended the judgment and decree as passed by the learned court below being well reasoned judgment and submitted that there is no scope of interference in any manner in the same. 11. Coming to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the letter dated 4.1.2007 obtained by the respondent/plaintiff is result of fraud, misrepresentation and fabrication, it would be apt to first reproduce relevant provisions of Order VI CPC, which read as under:- 1. Pleading.—“Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement. 2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence— (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 4. Particulars to be given where necessary.—In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. 12. Particulars to be given where necessary.—In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. 12. From the perusal of Order VI CPC, it is specifically clear that every pleading shall contain and contain only a statement in a concise form of all the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be. Order VI Rule 4 CPC requires parties to state specific particulars to support their claims of fraud and misrepresentation. Failure to do so leads to passing of adverse order. General allegation that fraud has been committed does not meet the legal requirement. A party who alleges fraud has the burden of proving its existence. 13. From the perusal of the written statement, it will be clear that there is no specific allegations qua fraud and misrepresentation and fabrication. In the written statement, only ground, which has been taken is that even if the letter dated 4.1.2007 had been issued by any official of the appellant/defendant-Company that is in connivance with the respondent/plaintiff and the same is not valid and legal. No specific allegations pertaining to the fraud, misrepresentation and fabrication have been levelled in the entire written statement. Pleadings to this effect are cryptic and vague, and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same. In the present case the allegation of fraud is illusory and not specifically pleaded or prayed. 14. It is well settled law that in order to prove plea of fraud, specific material/pleadings and evidence has to be placed on record and in absence of doing so, adverse inference has to be drawn against the said party. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal , (2020) 13 SCC 143 has held as under:- “11. It is well settled law that in order to prove plea of fraud, specific material/pleadings and evidence has to be placed on record and in absence of doing so, adverse inference has to be drawn against the said party. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal , (2020) 13 SCC 143 has held as under:- “11. Relying upon and following the decision of this Court in the case of O.C. Krishnan and others (C.O. No. 1305/1997 order dated 6.6.2000 (cal), thereafter the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s Cambridge Solutions Limited (2016) 5 LW 45 , has rejected the plaint in which the order passed by the DRT was challenged, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. It is required to be noted that in the said case also there were allegations of fraud in the plaint and considering the averments in the plaint, it was found that the allegations of fraud are illusory. It is observed by the Division Bench in the said decision that specific instances and acts of fraud with evidence have to be pleaded in the plaint. It is further observed that mere statements are not enough. It is further observed that it is not sufficient if just fraud is pleaded and there must be material to show that the fraud is committed. 12. Having considered the pleadings and the averments in the suits, more particularly the allegations of fraud, we find that the allegations of fraud are with respect to the partnership deed and there are no allegations at all with respect to mortgage created by the Guarantor – Shri Kallikutty and that too with respect to the deed of guarantee executed by the Guarantor. Much reliance is placed upon the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate holding the partners of the firm guilty. However, it is required to be noted that even in the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate there is no reference to the deed of guarantee and/or the mortgage created by the Guarantor. Even the bank is not a party to the said proceedings. It is reported that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, further appeal is pending. Even the bank is not a party to the said proceedings. It is reported that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, further appeal is pending. Be that as it may, considering the pleadings/averments in the suits and the allegations of fraud, we are of the opinion that the allegations of fraud are illusory and only with a view to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT. We are of the opinion that therefore the suits are vexatious and are filed with a mala fide intention to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT.” 16. In H.S. Goutham vs. Rama Murthy , (2021) 5 SCC 241 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “32. Before the learned Principal City Civil Judge, the judgment debtors led the evidence in support of their claim that the judgment and decree was obtained by fraud and mis-representation, which evidence was not led by them before the Executing Court when they submitted the objections and contended that the decree was obtained by fraud. That, thereafter, the learned Principal City Civil Judge submitted the report that the decree was obtained by fraud and on the basis of the report submitted by learned Principal City Civil Judge mainly, the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree by the impugned judgment and order. Thus, from the aforesaid it is crystal clear that all through-out there was a delay and negligence on the part of the judgment debtors in not initiating the appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage. 35. Now, so far as the procedure adopted by the High Court calling for the report from the learned Principal City Civil Judge on whether the decree was obtained by fraud or not is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time when the High Court passed such an order, there was already an order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors that the decree was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. As observed by the learned Executing Court in the order dated 03.03.1998, the judgment debtors except the averments that the decree was obtained by fraud, mis- representation, neither any further submissions were made on that nor even the judgment debtors led any evidence in support of the same. As observed by the learned Executing Court in the order dated 03.03.1998, the judgment debtors except the averments that the decree was obtained by fraud, mis- representation, neither any further submissions were made on that nor even the judgment debtors led any evidence in support of the same. Therefore, as such, learned Executing Court was justified in overruling the objection that the decree was obtained by fraud, mis- representation etc. 36. As per the settled principle of law, when the fraud is alleged the same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient. Therefore, subsequent order passed by the High Court calling for the report from the learned Principal City Civil Judge on the question whether the decree was obtained by fraud or not, can be said to be giving an opportunity to the judgment debtors to fill in the lacuna. Therefore, the course adopted by the High Court calling for the report from the learned Principal City Civil Judge cannot be approved.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Electrosteel Castings Limited vs. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited , (2022) 2 SCC 573 has observed as under:- “7.2 However, it is required to be noted that except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without any specific particulars with respect to the ‘fraud’, the plaintiff – appellant/defendant herein intends to get out of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and wants the suit to be maintainable. As per the settled preposition of law mere mentioning and using the word ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ is not sufficient to satisfy the test of ‘fraud’. As per the settled preposition of law such a pleading/using the word ‘fraud’/ ‘fraudulent’ without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of ‘fraud’. 8. In case of Bishundeo Narain and Anr, 1951 SCC 447 in para 28, it is observed and held as under: “22.... Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. 8.1 Similar view has been expressed in the case of Ladli Parshad Jaiswal AIR 1963 SC 1279 and after considering the decision of the Privy Council in Bharat Dharma Syndicate vs. Harish Chandra 1937 SCC OnLine PC 24, it is held that a litigant who prefers allegation of fraud or other improper conduct must place on record precise and specific details of these charges. Even as per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, particulars shall be stated in the pleading. Similarly in the case of K.C Sharma & Company, (2020) 15 SCC 209 , it is held that ‘fraud’ has to be pleaded with necessary particulars. In Ram Singh and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 209 , it is observed and held by this Court that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. 8.2 In the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467 , it is observed and held in para 5 as under: “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.” 8.3 A similar view has been expressed by this court in the recent decision in the case of P. Selathal & Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 143 .” 18. In view of aforesaid exposition of law, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that letter dated 4.1.2007, Ext. PW1/B is result of fraud, misrepresentation and fabrication does not hold good and said contention is rejected. 19. As far as second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation is concerned, in that regard pleadings of the respondent/plaintiff have to be taken into account. 20. In para 10 of the plaint, stand as taken by the respondent/plaintiff is as follows: “10. That the cause of action for filing the suit against the defendant has accrued to the plaintiff first when the works were awarded to the plaintiff, then again on the completion of the said works in June 2008, then again when the works executed by the plaintiff were evaluated on behalf of the defendant by recording the measurements for the same and preparing a bill on the basis of the said measurements during December 2009, then again when the notice dated 15.12.2011 was served on the defendant and the cause of action is still continuing.” 21. As per averments, it has been mentioned in the said para that after completion of the works in June 2008, works were evaluated and measurements were taken and after preparing the bills, final bills were submitted in the month of December 2009 and notice was issued on 15.12.2011 and it was served upon the appellant/defendant and thus, the cause of action is still continuing. 22. In order to substantiate his plea, the respondent/plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ext. PW1/A, wherein, especially in para 6 thereof, it has been stated that after the said bill was prepared, he had been requesting the appellant/defendant to make payment of the work he has done, however appellant/defendant had been putting off him on one pretext or the other. In para 5 of the affidavit, he specifically averred that final measurements in respect of the work executed by him were also done by M/s SSJV in December 2009 and bill on the basis of measurement was also prepared. In his cross-examination, appellant/defendant was unable to extract anything fruitful from the respondent/plaintiff. 23. Copy of the bid document has been placed on record as Ext. PW1/C and clause 16 thereof reads as under:- “16. Submission of final bill and its settlement. The Contractor shall submit the final bill within one month of the date of actual completion of the work in all respects. His claims shall be settled (except those under dispute) within five months thereafter.” 24. The respondent/plaintiff has been able to establish that after completion of work in all respects, final measurements in respect of the work executed by him were done by M/s SSJV in December 2009 and after final measurements, five months period came to an end in May 2010, whereas the present suit was filed before the learned court below on 25.4.2013, meaning thereby the suit has been filed within period of limitation. 25. Article 18 of the Limitation Act prescribes the limitation of three years from the date when the work is done. It reads “For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment” and the period begins to run “when the work is done”. 26. 25. Article 18 of the Limitation Act prescribes the limitation of three years from the date when the work is done. It reads “For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment” and the period begins to run “when the work is done”. 26. Limitation for filing a suit under article 18 of the Act is prescribed as 3 years and in the present case as per clause 16 of the bid document, contractor was to submit final bill within one month of the date of actual completion of the work in all respects and thereafter claims were required to be settled within five months thereafter. Once the final measurements were done in the month of December 2009, therefore, as per clause 16 of the bid document, five months’ period came to an end in May 2010 and the limitation period was to expire in May 2013, therefore, the suit, which has been filed on 25.4.2013, is well within period of limitation and the findings as returned by the learned court below are sustainable in the eyes of law. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has contended that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.25 lacs is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. She has urged that specific objection was taken by the appellant/defendant in their written statement, wherein it has been averred that the suit deserves to be dismissed because of non-joinder of necessary parties. She has further contended that in the absence of M/s. SSJV Project Private Limited, the suit which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable. 28. Perusal of the documents, which have been placed on record, reveals that the appellant/defendant awarded the work to the respondent/plaintiff vide letter dated 4.1.2007, which has been exhibited as PW1/B and the said letter speaks for itself as it clearly stipulates that this letter was issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd., the appellant/defendant herein, whereby it has been mentioned that “We are pleased to award the works for construction of right abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 mtr to RD 0.1830 mt as per the details of BOQ”. 29. 29. The said document is very specific and clear and it clearly demonstrates that the award letter was issued by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the appellant/defendant cannot resile from the same and cannot say that there is no privity of contract between the parties. 30. The respondent/plaintiff has placed on record Ext.PW3/A, copy of licence issued to him under Section 12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 on 19.7.2007 by the Labour Officer, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo. Receipts qua that effect have been placed on record as Ext. PW3/B and Ext. PW3/C. The respondent/plaintiff has also placed on record, Ext. PW3/D, which is a certificate issued by “Principal Employer” and the same has been issued by M/s Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid document clearly stipulates that the appellant/defendant had engaged the respondent/plaintiff as contractor in their establishment and there is an undertaking to remain bound by all the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1974. 31. The aforesaid mentioned documents have come from proper custody of the public office and the respondent/plaintiff has produced PW3 Satish Kumar, Clerk from the office of Labour Officer, District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in order to prove these documents. 32. From the perusal of these documents, there is no iota of confusion that the work was awarded to the respondent/plaintiff and there is privity of contract between the parties. These documents clearly show that the work was allotted to the respondent/plaintiff and the said work was completed by him and when the bill was raised then the differences arose between the parties. 33. Further Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff has dragged the appellant/defendant in an uncalled for litigation and evidence as led by the appellant/defendant has not been appreciated by the learned court below in its true perspective, in this regard, it would be apt to peruse copy of special power of attorney, Ext. DW1/A, stated to have been issued in favour of Anup Singh Banyal, son of Sh. DW1/A, stated to have been issued in favour of Anup Singh Banyal, son of Sh. Baldev Singh, working as Senior Manager (P & A) of the appellant-company and perusal whereof, would reveal that Anup Singh Banyal, though in order to disapprove the case of the respondent/plaintiff appeared as DW1, was never authorized by the appellant/defendant to enter into the witness box or to depose on behalf of the appellant/company in the instant proceedings. 34. Apart from above, further perusal of Ext. DW1/A shows that Dr. K.V. Rao is not the Managing Director of the Company, whereas company can sue or can be sued only on behalf of the company through its Managing Director, or Company Secretary or any authorized signatory under order XXIX CPC, who is able to depose the fact, appear and act on behalf of the representing company in a civil suit. 35. Thus, in absence of any memorandum of association, memorandum of article, resolution or any other authorization, vide which any of the Directors was authorized by its Board of Directors, no reliance can be placed upon the statement of DW1 and an adverse inference has to be drawn against appellant/defendant. 36. Even otherwise, records show that the appellant/defendant has failed and did not make any endeavour to produce any office bearer of M/s SSJV Private Limited in order to corroborate their contentions. Very case of the appellant/defendant that they entered into an agreement with M/s. SSJV Projects Private Ltd. and not with the respondent/plaintiff could have been proved by the officials of the said company and in the absence of there being any proof or evidence before the Court, it draws an adverse inference against the appellant/defendant. Had any official of M/s SSJV Projects Ltd. been examined in that regard the things would have been more clear. 37. As regards the respondent/plaintiff, in order to support his claim of Rs. 20,61,045/- in lieu of work executed by him, has placed on record rough measurement of work. The aforesaid claim of the respondent/plaintiff has also been reiterated in legal notice Ext. PW1/D having been issued to the appellant/defendant. The plaintiff in his deposition has categorically stated that a sum of 20,61,045/- was recoverable from the defendant/appellant. 38. If the statement of DW1 is perused, there is no denial or any whisper qua actual cost of abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 mtrs. PW1/D having been issued to the appellant/defendant. The plaintiff in his deposition has categorically stated that a sum of 20,61,045/- was recoverable from the defendant/appellant. 38. If the statement of DW1 is perused, there is no denial or any whisper qua actual cost of abutment of bridge and road to power house from RD 0.1430 mtrs. to 0.1830 mtrs. to be not Rs. 20,61,045/-. The appellant/defendant has also failed to lead any cogent or reliable evidence to show that the payment of aforesaid claim has been made to M/s. SSJV Project Pvt. Ltd. and even did not place on record original of Mark D-5 (ledger account w.e.f 1.4.2004 to 31.8.2013 of the appellant/defendant). The appellant/defendant has failed to rebut the case of the respondent/plaintiff that work in question was 'not completed from RD 0.1430 mtrs. 0.1830 mtrs. Even DW1/PW2 Anup Banyal, who was working as Senior Manager in the appellant/defendant-company has categorically admitted the receipt of legal notice Ext. PW-1/D having been issued by the respondent/plaintiff reiterating therein his claim to the tune of Rs.20,61,045/- against the appellant/defendant. 39. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has tried to place heavy reliance on the documents, Marks D, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5, however in absence of their proof, these documents cannot be read and no reliance can be placed on the same. 40. The respondent/plaintiff has been able to establish and prove his case by leading oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly partly decreed the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 20,61,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till the date of filing of the suit and also future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of entire amount. 41. No other point was urged by the respective parties. 42. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.