1 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 1 GAHC010138722024 2026:GAU-AS:13659 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA/5/2025 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner and Special Secretary PWD Roads Department Government of Assam 2. The Chief Engineer PWD Roads Assam Chandmari Guwahati 3 District Kamrup Metro Assam Pin 781003 3. The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department Diburgarh Roads Circle Dibrugarh 4. The Executive Engineer PWD Dibrugarh Rural Roads Division Dibrugarh …..Appellants -Versus- 1. Pradip Kumar Das S/O Lt. Abhoy Charan Das R/O Fatasil Ambari Nipen Bora Road Guwahati Kamrup Metro Assam Pin 781025 ……Respondent 2 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 2 For Appellants : Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. N. Alam, Advocate Date of Hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of Judgment : 10.09.2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the State of Assam and three others, impugning the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup (Metro) in Title Suit No. 362/2014. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent, namely Shri Pradip Kumar Das, who was a registered Class I(A) contractor working under various departments of the Government of Assam and other Public Sector Undertakings, was, on 18.06.2007, allotted the work of construction of road from (i) Grab Tea Estate to Bamunbari, (ii) Rajgarh to Lengeri package, including cross drainage work and routine maintenance of work for 5 years, bearing package No. AS-06-38. Before allotment of the said work, the present appellants had floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the work of construction 3 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 3 and maintenance of rural roads and cross drainage work under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (Phase-VI) for the year 2006– 2007, and the present respondent had submitted his bid, which was accepted by the appellants' authority. The respondent thereafter signed the agreement and deposited the performance security. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Department, Chandmari (defendant No. 3), issued notice to proceed with the work. The value of the contract was at Rs. 3,09,48,000/- and the time schedule for completion of work was 9 months from the date of allotment. 4. It is pertinent to mention herein that there was a wooden bridge, being bridge No. 2/1 at Tiniali Kenduguri Sologuri road, which was the only way for the present respondent to carry materials to the site from the approved quarries, and it was in a good condition. But subsequently, after allotment of work, the respondent found that due to heavy rain, the bridge became dilapidated and was unable to bear the weight of vehicles carrying heavy materials. 5. It was contended by the respondent that he informed the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, Dibrugarh (defendant No. 5), by his letter dated 09.07.2007, and thereafter on 28.08.2007, 20.09.2007, and 15.11.2007, to take necessary steps for repairing the said bridge. However, no response was received by him. As such, due to the poor condition of the only bridge which was to be used for carrying the building materials to the work site, the respondent was unable to start the work effectively. Due to the poor condition of the only bridge, the present respondent had to 4 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 4 bring the building materials from Nagaland/Sivasagar, whereby the cost of the work was increased and its pace was slowed down. It was further contended that local people also created obstructions in using of the road by claiming the same to be their own land. 6. In spite of the aforesaid difficulties, the present respondent/plaintiff continued the construction work and made satisfactory progress. Thereafter, the appellants paid three running bills to the present respondent after deducting an amount of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively therefrom as liquidated damages. 7. The respondent thereafter, by his letters dated 09.07.2009 and 10.07.2009, requested the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Roads Division, Dibrugarh (defendant No. 5), not to deduct any liquidated damages from the bill amount as his work was hampered due to reasons beyond his control and the same was communicated by him. In the meanwhile, three extensions were given to the respondent by the present appellants, and the last extension of work order given to him expired in October 2008. However, the respondent continued to execute the work without extension, and he was paid for his bills on 20.11.2008. 8. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.05.2010, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural Roads Division, Dibrugarh (defendant No. 5), informed the respondent/plaintiff that he achieved 87.5% of physical progress and that in the preceding month no work was done for 28 days, and therefore, the contract has been rescinded. 9. Thereafter, the appellants passed a speaking order showing the overall progress of work as 76.37%, to which the 5 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 5 respondent/plaintiff requested to reconsider the matter and release an amount of Rs. 70,17,207/- against the work done as well as the security deposit deposited by the respondent/plaintiff. 10. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, issued a corrigendum to the effect that the overall progress of work is 67% only. 11. Finding the rescinding of contract by the present appellants and deduction of liquidated damages of Rs. 1,20,000/- after the present respondent had attained 87.5% progress of work to be wholly unjustified, the present respondent filed a title suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 26.05.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, Dibrugarh (defendant No. 5), whereby the work order/contract of the present respondent/plaintiff was rescinded, as illegal, unfair, baseless, null and void, and not binding on the plaintiff/present respondent. He also prayed for a declaration that the overall progress of the work made by the plaintiff is 87.5% as stated in the order dated 26.05.2010, and the corrigendum issued by defendant No. 5 on 03.03.2011 stating that physical progress of work of the plaintiff was 67% as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for a declaration that the letter dated 03.03.2011 issued by defendant No. 5 imposing penalty as well as liquidated damages upon the plaintiff as null and void. It also sought for a declaration that the decision of the Standing Empowered Committee dated 19.01.2012 upholding the termination of the work and holding the total physical work to be 67% as null 6 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 6 and void. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 2,98,76,518.39/- as outstanding dues and a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 362/2014 in the Court of Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. Later on same was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. 12. The present appellants, as defendants, had filed a joint written statement denying the pleas of the plaintiff and taking usual defenses like lack of cause of action, undervaluation of the suit, non-payment of proper court fees, and other similar defenses. They also took the plea that the plaintiff, being a contractor, was supposed to be well aware of the site condition before bidding for any work, and that similar type of works under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana package (AS-06-37) had been successfully completed by another contractor using the same timber bridge about which the plaintiff was complaining, and during the same period. 13. It was further contended in the written statement that the payment of running bills of the plaintiff was done from time to time as per recorded measurements in the Measurement Book (MB), and it was also contended that the imposition of liquidated damages on the plaintiff was as per the relevant clauses of the tender agreement. It was further contended that as per the Measurement Book records, the physical progress of the work was 67% and not 87.5%, and as 7 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 7 such, the same was informed to the plaintiff by corrigendum dated 03.03.2011. 14. It was also contended that there was more than 28 days of continuous non-activity at the site by the plaintiff, and the same was regarded as a fundamental breach of the tender agreement; as such, the defendants have rightfully terminated the work order of the plaintiff/present respondent. 15. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed the following issues: (i) Whether there is a cause of action for this suit? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? (iii) Whether the defendants illegally rescinded the contract awarded to the plaintiff? (iv) Whether the letter dated 03.03.2011 issued by defendant No. 5 imposing penalty and liquidated damages upon the plaintiff is illegal and liable to be declared as such? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree and/or relief as prayed for? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation as prayed for? 16. In support of his contention, the plaintiff/present respondent adduced the evidence of four PWs. However, as only PW-1 appeared for cross-examination, hence it is his evidence only which was taken up for consideration by the Trial Court. The defendants 8 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 8 also examined one DW in support of their contentions. Ultimately, by the judgment and decree which has been impugned in this appeal, the Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 17. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention herein that the appellants had also filed an interlocutory application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in this appeal to bring on record two documents, namely, (i) The letter dated 21.04.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, Chandmari; and (ii) The letter dated 27.04.2010 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, Chandmari, addressed to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, to show that the Executive Engineer, PWD, was authorised by the Chief Engineer by the aforesaid letters to rescind the contract. However, the aforesaid interlocutory application was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 10th of September, 2026 passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 525/2025 for the reasons stated in the said order, mainly, on the ground that the appellants have failed to bring their case within the ambit of Circumstances provided for in the Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They have failed to justify as to why for last 16 years the said letters could not be produced before the Court and why no whisper about the existence of the said letters was made earlier. 18. Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit by passing the 9 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 9 impugned judgment and decree without taking into consideration the documentary evidence exhibited by the defendants, namely Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, and Exhibit-C, as well as other relevant materials on record. He submits that the Trial Court, while coming to the findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 4, had failed to appreciate the fact that the present appellants were fully justified in terminating the contract with the present respondent/plaintiff, who was granted three extensions by the appellants, however, even after such extensions, he failed to complete the entrusted work. He submits that the Trial Court also failed to take into consideration that the plaintiff committed fundamental breach of contract by remaining idle for more than 28 days, as was permissible under Clause 52.2(a) of the General Conditions of Contract. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that though the Trial Court, while deciding Issue Nos. 3 and 4, had held that defendant No. 5, i.e., the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural Roads Division, Dibrugarh, was not competent to issue the termination letter, however, it failed to take into consideration that no such pleading or evidence was adduced to that effect by the plaintiff, and no formal issue with that regard had been framed by the Trial Court. It also failed to take into consideration that, in absence of a pleading wherein the authority of defendant No. 5 to terminate the contract was questioned, and in absence of an issue thereto, the present appellants were deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence in support of such termination and to show such authority during the pendency of the suit in the trial. 10 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 10 20. He submits that such authority was given to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rural Road Division by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Assam by his letter dated 27.04.2010, and the same is brought on record by seeking leave of this Court to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Trial Court also failed to take into consideration that the Measurement Book (MB) was exhibited by the defendants as Exhibit-C; however, the same was not considered by the Trial Court. It also failed to take into consideration the oral testimony of DW-1 during his cross- examination, when he deposed that the actual quantum of work done under the contract can be assessed from the Measurement Book available with the office of the Executive Engineer, that is, defendant No. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the progress of work has to be assessed on the basis of entries made in the Measurement Book and not on the erroneous mention about the same in the termination letter dated 26.05.2010, which was exhibited as Exhibit-8 by the plaintiff. 22. He submits that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the contract was terminated not only because of the poor progress of work, but also due to fundamental breach of the terms of the contract by the plaintiff, and as such, he submits that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. In support of 11 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 11 his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following rulings: i. Madhukar vs. Sangram reported in (2001) 4 SCC 756 ii. Dheeraj Singh vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in (2023) 19 SCC 214 iii. Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 iv. Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami reported in (2011) 12 SCC 220 v. Birendra Shankar Sanyal vs. Dinesh Chandra Sharma, reported in (2015) 2 GLR 731 vi. State of Rajasthan vs. T.N. Sahani, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 vii. Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 viii. G.L. Litmus Events Private Limited vs. DDA, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5772 23. On the other hand, Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit after considering the materials on record and after correctly appreciating the evidence on record. 24. He submits that the Trial Court rightly did not take into consideration Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C exhibited by DW-1 to show that the physical progress of the contractual work by the plaintiff 12 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 12 was 67% at the time of termination, as no Measurement Book could be produced before the Trial Court. He submits that Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C, which were computer-generated documents, does not mention as to from which Measurement Book said account was prepared. No issue number, seal and signature of issuing authority, and dealing persons, which were mandatory requirement of handling the Measurement Book, were mentioned therein. 25. He further submits that the termination order dated 26.05.2010 (Exhibit-8) was issued by present respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 5). However, Exhibit A, that is, the tender agreement, was signed by appellant No. 2. i.e., the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Chandmari, and not by appellant No. 4. He submits that as per Clause 52.1 of the contract agreement, which contains the termination clause, it is only the employer who can terminate the contract in case of any fundamental breach of the contract. He submits that the employer has been defined in the contract as the party who employs the contractor to carry out the work. He submits that in the instant case, it was the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, who had signed the contract agreement, and as such, it is appellant No. 2 who was the employer in the instant case and who only had the authority to rescind the contract. He submits that the Trial Court rightly held that defendant No. 5, i.e., present appellant No. 4 did not have the authority to rescind the contract. He submits that it is the settled proposition of law that the authority signing/awarding the contract only has the jurisdiction to terminate the same and no other authority. 13 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 13 26. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that DW-1, during his cross-examination, has deposed that the quantum of actual work was assessed from Measurement Book, but same has not been submitted or exhibited i.e., the Measurement Book pertaining to package No. AS-06-38. He submits that in the corrigendum dated 03.03.2011, which was exhibited as Exhibit-15, there is no mention therein that the percentage of total progress of work till withdrawal, that is 67%, was mentioned therein on the basis of verification from Measurement Book. He further submits that DW-1 also admitted during his cross-examination that Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C were computer-generated documents prepared by him just seven days prior to submission of his affidavit. As such, he submits that the same cannot be regarded as Measurement Book, and the Trial Court was right in discarding the same. 27. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the present appellant had not objected to Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12, which clearly reflect that till the date of payment of 11th running account bill dated 09.09.2009, the total percentage of work completed by the respondent was 76.37%. He submits that even after 09.09.2009, the respondent/plaintiff was allowed to carry out the remaining contractual work till it was illegally terminated by Exhibit-8 on 26.05.2010 on the ground that the present respondent had not done any work for preceding 28 days from 26.05.2010, which itself indicates that till preceding 28 days of 26.05.2010, the work was going on. He submits that when the documents clearly indicate that till 09.09.2009, 76.37% of work was already 14 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 14 completed, hence the quantification of work as shown in Exhibit-8, that is, 87.50%, was in conformity with the progress of work shown in Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12. He submits that the appellants, as defendants, had failed to adduce any evidence to counter Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12 during the trial. 28. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the present respondent is questioning Exhibit-8, i.e., the termination letter dated 26.05.2010, on the ground that the termination may not be made by an authority which is not empowered to terminate, as he was not the employer of the respondent in the contract, however, he is not questioning the endorsement regarding progress of work to the extent of 87.50% made therein. He submits that by applying the doctrine of severability, though the authority of appellant No. 4 to terminate the contract may be questioned, however, the admission regarding the progress of work mentioned therein may be accepted. 29. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and there is no justification in interfering with the same; as such, he prays for dismissing the present appeal. In support of his submission, he has cited the following rulings: i. M/s Rank Projects and Development Private Limited vs. State of Assam and others (Judgment dated 04.08.2025 in WP(C) No. 4359/2025) ii. Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1952 AIR (SC) 16 15 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 15 iii. Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwantrao Chavan, reported in 1989 AIR (SC) 1582 iv. State of Punjab vs. Hari Kishan Sharma reported in 1966 AIR (SC) 1081 v. The State of Assam and others vs. Iqbal Hussain Laskar reported in 2026 Supreme (Online) (GAU) 205 vi. Canara Bank vs. K.L. Rajgarhia (D) through LRs reported in 2025 INSC 1278 30. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 31. The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Trial Court was correct in holding that defendant No. 5, namely, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, was not authorized to terminate the contract, and whether it was right in declaring Exhibit-8 (the termination order dated 26.05.2010) to be bad in law, while simultaneously relying on the same document to conclude that the percentage of work completed by the respondent was 87.50%, and whether it was right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 32. On perusal of the memo of appeal presented by the appellant, it appears that out of the six issues framed by the Trial Court, the appellant is aggrieved primarily by the findings on Issues Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Issues Nos. 5 and 6. The findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have not been agitated by them in this appeal. This Court, 16 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 16 therefore, affirms the findings of the Trial Court on the existence of the cause of action and the maintainability of the suit, agreeing with the conclusions drawn on Issues Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. 33. The main bone of contention between the parties in this appeal centers on Issue No. 3, namely, whether the defendants illegally rescinded the contract awarded to the plaintiff. 34. A perusal of Exhibit-A (the contract for the construction work awarded to the plaintiff) reveals that the agreement was entered into between the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads), Chandmari, Guwahati (defendant No. 3 in Title Suit No. 362/2014) and Sri Pradip Kumar Das, the plaintiff. However, Exhibit-8 (the termination order dated 26.05.2010) was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, Dibrugarh (defendant No. 5 in the suit). Hence, it is apparent that the contract was not rescinded by the authority with whom the plaintiff had executed the agreement. 35. Under Clause 52.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), the "Employer" may terminate the contract if the contractor commits a fundamental breach. Clause 1.1 defines the "Employer" as the party named in the contract data who employs the contractor to carry out the works, including routine maintenance. The records, in the instant case, show that the Employer was the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Chandmari, Guwahati-3. The termination, however, was done by an authority not falling within the definition of "Employer" under the GCC. Although, the Employer may delegate powers, the appellants failed to place on record any document, during the trial, 17 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 17 for establishing that such authority had been delegated to defendant No. 5 to rescind the contract. There was no whisper of the letter dated 27.04.2010, allegedly issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, which purportedly authorized the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division, to rescind the agreement. 36. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, though the appellants tried to bring on record the aforesaid letter dated 27.04.2010 by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, by the order dated 10.09.2026 passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 525/2025, the prayer for adducing additional evidence by the appellants at appellate stage for introducing the aforesaid document was rejected, and as such, said document cannot be taken into consideration. 37. Under such circumstances, there appears to be no material on record to show that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Rural Road Division (defendant No. 5) was authorized to rescind the agreement. Hence, as regards rescission of contract by the defendant No. 5, the finding of the Trial Court that same is bad in law, as it was not by the Employer who had the authority of rescinding the contract or under his authorization that the said rescission order was issued, cannot be faulted with. Hence, the Trial Court was right in holding that, as far as rescission of contract by the defendant No. 5 is concerned, same is bad in law. 38. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the authority of defendant No. 5 to rescind the contract was not 18 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 18 questioned by the plaintiff in his plaint is also not acceptable, inasmuch as the Issue No. 3 framed by the Trial Court pertains to the illegality as regards rescission of contract awarded to the plaintiff. Hence, had there been any authorization to the defendant No. 5 to rescind the contract, same could have been produced by the present appellants during the trial before the Trial Court. As such, the finding regarding absence of authority on the part of defendant No. 5 to rescind the contract does not appear to be without any basis, and as such, same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 39. However, as regards the percentage of work done by the plaintiff at the time of issuance of Exhibit 8 is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that the percentage of work mentioned therein, that is 87.50%, may be believed, as has been rightly done by the Trial Court, for the following reasons. 40. On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as materials available on record, it appears that the Trial Court did not rely on Exhibit-15, which was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD in form of a corrigendum wherein it was mentioned that the progress of work was 67%. The Trial Court took into consideration the fact that in the Exhibit 15, nowhere it was mentioned that the statement regarding progress of work of 67% was verified on the basis of measurement book. Further, it also appears that the Trial Court correctly took into consideration the fact that Exhibit-15 was issued after a lapse of about 10 months of the date of issuance of Exhibit-8, without indicating therein the basis on which Exhibit-15 was issued. 19 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 19 41. It also appears that the Trial Court also took into consideration that Exhibit-9 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD also mentions that overall progress of the work was 76.37% and it was issued on the basis of work completed as on 09.09.2009, i.e., much before the date on which the Exhibit-8 was issued. Further, the contention of the respondent in Exhibit-11, which has not been controverted by the appellant's side, that the respondent was paid in full against the 11th running account bill dated 09.09.2009, which shows that the total percentage of work completed by the respondent was 76.37%, has also not been controverted by the appellants’ side. 42. As such, the materials on record also indicate that till 09.09.2009, the progress of work completed by the respondent was 76.37%. Whereas, the contention of the respondent is that he continued to work after 09.09.2009 also, and he was only stopped from working further on 26.05.2010 by Exhibit 8. As such, the contention that the work of the contract was progressing beyond 09.09.2009 and it has reached to the tune of 87.5%, as indicated in Exhibit 8, may not be disbelieved, as has been rightly done by the Trial Court on the touchstone of the principles of preponderance of probabilities. 43. It also appears that the trial court did not take into consideration the Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C, as it appears that during cross- examination, the DW-1 admitted that the same were computer- generated documents which were prepared by him only seven days prior to submission of the affidavit. It also appears that no issue number, seal, and signature of the issuing authority or the person 20 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 20 who maintained such Measurement Book has been indicated therein. 44. It is also apparent from the materials on record that no joint verification of the work site was done to ascertain the final progress of work in pursuant to the speaking order, which has been exhibited as Exhibit-9. As such, the percentage of progress of work as indicated in Exhibit-8 appears to be the correct indication of the progress of work at the time of termination of the contract, as has been rightly relied upon by the trial court. 45. The appellants have failed to produce the measurement book, which was available in the office of the Executive Engineer, to justify the lesser percentage of progress of work of the contract than what has been indicated in the Exhibit-8. The Trial Court correctly discarded the Exhibit-15, i.e., the corrigendum issued by the Chief Engineer, where the overall progress of work was indicated as 67%, as no indication was made therein that the said percentage of progress has been mentioned therein on the basis of the entries made in the measurement book. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding arrived at by the Trial Court against the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 in the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court in this appeal. 46. As regards the finding of the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, since the Trial Court came to the finding on Issue Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff (the present respondent) and since the termination of contract by order dated 26.05.2010 (Exhibit-8) was held to be illegal as well as the Exhibit-15 is also held to be 21 RFA No. 5/2025 Page 21 issued without any basis, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, the Trial Court was right in setting aside the directions regarding imposition of penalty and liquidated damages on the respondent as unjustified. Further, since the respondent was found to have completed 87.5% of the contract work, he is entitled to get the due amount against work, which has already been completed and as such, the Trial Court was right in decreeing the suit for realization of due amount of Rs. 2,98,76,518.39/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum. The Trial Court, accordingly, also did not erred in granting other reliefs sought for by the plaintiff as those relief were consequent upon the findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 4, which were already decided in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., the present respondent. 47. For the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed with cost. 48. Send back the record of the Trial Court to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.09.15 17:50:01 +05'30'