1 2025:CGHC:14556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 594 of 2018 1 - Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, 2 - Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, 3 - Food Corporation of India, A Statutory Corporation, All at Branch Office Situated At Mova, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Gopal Chandra Agrawal S/o Shri Sadhu Lal Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Near Krishi Upaz Mandi, Newra, P.S. Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Singhal along with Mr. Ayush Mahishwar, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 26.03.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 15B/2017 2 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The parties shall be referred herein as per their description before the trial Court. 2. As per plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he was working as contractor with the Defendant No. 3- corporation. Works were awarded from time to time and he completed the same to the satisfaction of the defendant-corporation. After completion of the work assigned from time to time, he submitted the bills, which were paid by the defendant No. 3. In terms of the tenders awarded from the year 2007 till 2011, plaintiff had deposited amounts towards security in terms of the terms and conditions of the concerned tender. Amount of Rs. 18,60,000/- of security deposit was made from time-to-time with the defendant No. 3. Plaintiff has completed the work as per tender awarded to him. Upon completion, plaintiff asked for refund of the said security deposits from the defendants, however, upon failure to receive the said amount, demand notice through advocate was sent, which could not yield any result. Hence, the present suit. 3. In their written statement, defendants have pleaded and argued that the defendant-corporation, inadvertently, had paid excess amount to the plaintiff, while making bill to bill payment. Therefore, the amount paid in excess were adjusted from the security deposit. By way of clarification, it is submitted that the nature of work performed by the plaintiff was in accordance with Clause 19(i) a,b,c of the Model Tender Form (in short 'MTF') and he was entitled for payment in accordance with the rates prescribed under the said clause. However, the plaintiff after obtaining payment once, submitted bills for differential in terms of clause 19(ii) a, b, c of the MTF, which were paid by the defendants. 3 There was difference of rates amongst the aforesaid two clauses. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 asked for refund of excess payment of Rs.13,98,242/- in terms of notice dated 20.11.2013. Upon failure to pay the said amount by the plaintiff, defendant adjusted the said amount from the security deposit of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that for the period between 07.11.2007 and 06.05.2010, work of loading was done by the plaintiff, when at the destined station 168 bags were found to be short. Therefore, as per clause XII of the MTF, plaintiff was liable to indemnify the defendants for the losses caused, which were assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,82,690/-. Stating further, it is pleaded and argued that the audit team of the defendant corporation, while auditing found certain irregularities and accordingly raised objections pertaining to the work done by the plaintiff during different tender periods. As per objections raised, a total loss of Rs. 29,36,000/- was assessed, which is pending for disposal. It was vehemently argued that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff is beyond period of limitation, in as much as transactions pertains to the years 2007 to 2011 and suit has been filed in the year 2017. Thus, has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties and the material available on record, learned trial Court framed the issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour o the plaintiff/respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the the impugned judgment and decree dated 08-08-2018 (Annexure P/1) are illegal, improper and hence liable to be set-aside. The learned trial Court seriously erred while deciding the issue No.1 by not considering the fact that all the contract for which instant recovery suit was filed, was 4 expired either in 2012 or well before 2012 and the alleged amount which was recoverable became due immediate after expiry at the contract period and suit can be filed only within three years from the date of expiry of contract but suit has been filed after lapse of more than five years as such, suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court did not consider the agreement clause and the documents exhibited by the appellants, which show that the appellants have rightly recovered the recoverable amount form the contractor/respondent as the excess payment was made to him due to wrong interpretations of clause of MTF. The learned trial Court failed to take into cognizance that the parties were bound by the agreement/contract executed between them for each and every work done by the contractor. As per Clause XII of the MTF, for every kind of damage caused to the corporation, the recovery can be made from the contractor/respondent and this fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court. The recovery of excess payment made to the contractor may also be set-off as per the contract/agreement. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff/respondent worked with corporation to stack the bags into the Godown of Corporation dumped by the Rice Millers, therefore he was not entitled for the payment as per item No. 19 (ii). The respondent was fully aware of this fact therefore he claimed the entire bills by applying item No. 19(i) and accordingly payment was made to him, which was accepted by him without any protest and he submitted supplementary bill after lapse of one year with ill motive. The plaintiff himself stated in cross examination that supplementary bill was submitted by him as per the order of General Manager, but he has not submitted the order of General Manager in support of his contention, 5 which shows that the respondent has not approached the Court with clean hand, because there was no such order/letter addressing him. The documents exhibited by the appellants were not considered by the learned trial Court in its right perspective. The learned trial Court did not consider the fact that the amount recovered from the security deposit is just and proper as per technical bid of MTF (Model Tender Form). The contractor is bound by the terms and condition stipulated in MTF, which has been singed by him and has accepted the fact in his cross examination, therefore the recovery from security deposit is just and proper and therefore, the decree is bad in law. The learned trial Court seriously erred by holding that plea of payment as per item No. 20 was not taken in written statement in fact the matter was deliberated in the H.Q. and a considered decision was taken by the H.Q. to regularize the payment as per Item No.20 of the price bid/MTF and communicated to R.O. Chhattisgarh vide letter dated 05-07-2018, which is the subsequent development after the filing of written statement as such same could not be incorporated in written statement. However, FCI is in process of implementing the direction of H.Q. in this reason without any discrimination. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Except one notice, appellants/defendants did not file any document in support of their case and the said notice was also considered by learned trial Court. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the guideline of 6 Hon’ble Apex Court and provisions of Limitation Act & rightly passed the decree in favour of plaintiff/respondent. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matters of Brij Mohandas Vs. Narsinghdas and others; AIR 1971 MP 243 and Sharda Talkies (firm) Vs. Madhulata Vyas and others; 1996 M.P.L.J. 697. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is evident from the record of learned trial Court that the plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 18,60,000/- against the defendants/appellants herein. As per para No. 3 of plaint, plaintiff/respondent pleaded as under:- 3) यह कि, ्ቚकिवादी ቛኋरा कि ष्पाकिदी कि म् लिलि संकिवादीओं ेሰ ्ቚकिवादी गण पासं कि म् लिलि राकि ्ቚकिभूकि राकि ( लिसंक्यरिराटी कि"पा#लि$टी) रूपा ेሰ $ेሰ ह&:- अ (्ቅेሰ संकिवादी किवावाराण था य+ ्ቚकिभूकि , राकि 01. आरा.एच.एच. एण्" टी वारा किदी 07.11.2007 सं 06.05.2010 10,00,000=00 रू. 02. आरा.एच.एच. एण्" टी वारा किदी 03.02.2012 सं 03.06.2012 2,60,000=00 रू. 03. आरा.एच.एच. एण्" टी (ए"ह) किदी 20.09.2012 सं 26.10.2012 3,00,000=00 रू. 04. पा&" एच. एण्" टी वा+ अभू पा(रा किदी 03.02.2009 सं 02.02.2011 2,00,000=00 रू. 7 05. पा&" एच. एण्" टी वा+ भूगबाहरा किदी 03.02.2009 सं 02.02.2011 1,00,000=00 रू. ( राकि 18,60,000=00 रू. 9. In para 3 of their written statement, appellants admitted that, "यह कि वादी पा्ቔ , कि"-3 ेሰ वाकिण+ थ्य स्वा रा ह&।" 10. Appellants/defendants admitted security deposit but in para 4, he denied claim of the plaintiff and objected that the defendant- corporation made excess payments to plaintiff; in the year 2007 to 2011, plaintiff caused loss to the corporation while loading work and it is also objected by the defendant/appellants that during internal audit, some amount is found to be recoverable from the plaintiff. 11.On the basis of pleadings of both the parties and material available on record, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- S.No. Issues Conclusion 01. Whether the present suit is barred by period of limitation? “not proved” 02. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.18,60,000/- with interest from the defendants? “proved” 03. Relief and costs? As per paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment 12. Issue No. 1 is related to limitation of suit and learned trial Court rightly appreciated Article 22 of the schedule attached with Limitation Act and 8 the said article prescribes that the period to be counted from the date when the demand is made. 13. In the matter of Brij Mohandas (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that, “ Apart from this, we find that the trial Court was in error in holding that the cause of action arose on 2.10.1951. Admittedly, this was a case of depоsit by the plaintiff of certain amount with the defendant. The cause of action in case of deposits arises when a demand for the return of the deposit is made. That demand was admittedly made in 1954 when the plaintiff sent the notice to the defendant to return his amount. If the limitation is calculated from that date, the suit would be very much in time even if the period between 18.3.1963 to 22.4.1963 is is not excluded.” 14. Further in the matter of Sharda Talkies (firm) (supra), it has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in para 18 as under:- “18. Once it is held that the transaction between the parties is a transaction of a loan, then Article 19 of the Limitation Act would be applicable, which says that the limitation would be three years from the date when the loan is taken. In the instant case, we have held that it is not a transaction of loan. Therefore, Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1965, would be applicable. For money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, limitation is three years from the date when the demand is made. In the instant case, admittedly the demand was made by a registered notice, dated 2-12-1973. Therefore, the suit would be within limitation 9 and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held that the suit is barred by limitation.” 15. In the present case also, plaintiff/respondent pleaded his security amount in para 3 and the said para 3 was admitted by the defendants in their written statement. Therefore, as per Article 22 of the schedule attached with the Limitation Act, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the documents of both the parties and found that as per notice dated 28.09.2016, plaintiff demanded his security amount and filed this suit within limitation. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to limitation. 16. It is also clear that the defendants/appellants herein admitted the security amount of plaintiff but they denied the claim of plaintiff on the ground that corporation made excess payments to the plaintiff; plaintiff caused loss to the corporation and during internal audit some amount was found to be recoverable from the plaintiff, but it is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the defendants only filed one document i.e. notice dated 20.11.2013 (Ex.D/6) and except this notice, no other documents were filed by the defendants. Even internal audit report was also not filed by the defendants. 17. In his cross-examination, Sachin Katariya (D.W.-1) admitted that, “9. यह ह संह ह& कि ठे दीरा ቛኋरा किय गय य+ बावा8 ्ቚकिवादी पा अलि9रिराय: ቛኋरा वा+ ቪኌस्पा &यरा , $ था , लि$सं आ9रा पारा भू(ग , राकि कि य , $ था । यह ह संह ह& कि वा+ ቪኌस्पा पारा ठे दीरा ቛኋरा किय गय य+ , ्ቚ< कि किवावाराण था दी= : पाኘ᭎: हस्ኘ᭎रा ह= था। यह ह संह ह& 10 कि ्ቚकिवादी ቛኋरा =ई भू वा+ ቪኌस्पा य अन्य दीस्वा$ $= यह संकिबा रा सं कि वादी ቛኋरा क्#$ 20 अ (संरा, कि क्#$ 19 अ (संरा ेሰ किय गय था, ्ቚराण ेሰ पा हA किय हB। 10. यह ह संह ह& कि ्ቚ०पा -5 एेሰटी एफ $= कि 2008 पावा+ ्ቚच था कि" 25 संेሰरूपा =ई भू क्#$ वादी एवा ्ቚकिवादी सं संबालि9 एेሰटी एफ ेሰ हA ह&। यह ह संह ह& कि वादी ቛኋरा किय गय य+ , ्ቚ< कि सं संबालि9 य+ किवावाराण क्#$ 19(1) य 2 ेሰ वाकिण+ हA ह&. स्वाE ह कि क्#$ 20 ेሰ वाकिण+ ह&। यह ह संह ह& कि वादी ቛኋरा ्ቚस्( किबा क्#$ 19 (1) अ (संरा था था उसं भू(ग दी8 (संरा किय गय था। ेሰ(झे इसं बा , $ रा हA ह& कि वादी ቛኋरा किय गय य+ क्#$ 19 (1) ेሰ वाकिण+ यI अ (रूपा/ संेሰኘ᭎ हA ह= सं, उच्चलि9रिराय: संेሰኘ᭎ ्ቚकिकि लि9त्वा / किय किय था। 18. यह ह संह ह& कि ्ቚकिवादी कि गेሰ ቛኋरा लि$सं ेሰ , ेሰ बारा टीL , गय ह& वाह ेሰ किसं $गह लिय कि"स्पा&च किय गय था इसंसं संबालि9 किवावाराण ्ቚराण ेሰ पा हA ह&। गव्य स्था पारा ेሰ पाहNच पाश्च8 भू$ गय ेሰ , किग ्ቚकिवादी कि गेሰ ेሰ+चरा रा ह&। यह ह संह ह& कि ्ቚस्( ्ቚराण ेሰ वादी सं ेሰ ेሰ गव्य स्था पारा पाहNच ेሰदी ेሰ $= टीL , ह&, उसं संेሰथा+ ेሰ गव्य स्था अलि9रा / ेሰ+चरा ቛኋरा दी गय संच य अन्य =ई दीस्वा$ पा हA किय ह&। यह ह ग ह& कि ्ቚकिवादी ቛኋरा उ्ሹ दीस्वा$ $ - बाझेरा ्ቚस्( हA किय गय ह& क्य:कि ेሰL पारा ऐसं =ई ेሰ भू हNई ह हA।" 18. Learned trial Court found that the plaintiff’s claim was denied by the defendants on three grounds but defendants have failed to prove all three grounds against the plaintiff. Plaintiff proved his claim by adducing evidence and it is clear that the defendants also admitted security deposit as pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint. Learned trial Court rightly found that there is no counter claim or set off claimed by the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 11 19. Looking to the oral and documentary evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and learned trial Court rightly decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit accordingly. 20. In the result, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV