C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2956 of 2005 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ======================================= Approved for Reporting Yes No No ======================================= SOLANKI CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PROP. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ======================================= Appearance: MR KG SUKHWANI(871) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 MS ROSHNI PATEL APP for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ======================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 23/06/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appellant is filed by the appellant – original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dhrangadhra in Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 1996 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the suit C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 filed by original plaintiff. 2. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 invited the tenders from public at large for the work of construction of Upaniyala – Moti Majethi Road by Hotmix Plant and pever finisher, Taluka : Dasada. It is also the case of the appellant that the estimated cost of the work was Rs.20,65,494.68 paise and the tender of the appellant was accepted for an amount of Rs.24,99,248.5 paise and the parties have entered into an agreement at Exhibit 49. That the work order was issued on 08.07.1992 with a stipulated period of 12 months and the same was completed on 07.07.1993, however, the work could not be completed on 07.07.1993. The appellant deposited Rs.51,700/- by way of FDR towards the security deposit at the time of entering into the contract. 3. The appellant had filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 1996 in the Civil Court, Dhrangadhra for recovery of security deposit, loss of profit and amount of Rs.7,27, 657/- withheld. Learned Judge has, after framing the issue at Exhibit 12 and hearing the respective parties and considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.K. G. Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.R. V. Acharya, learned counsel for respondent No.3 C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 and Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 6. Mr.Sukhwani, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly came to be conclusion that the appellant is the guilty of breach of contract. He has submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly relied upon the oral evidence of respondent’s witness at Exhibit 96, who has no personal knowledge. He has submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the liquidated damages / compensation / penalty was illegally imposed on the appellant. He has submitted that due to breach of contract on the part of the respondents, the appellant had requested for extension of the contract. He has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel has submitted that the learned Judge has not committed any error of facts and law in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the appeal. She has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the facts of the case and material on record as well as submissions canvassed by learned C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 counsel appearing for the respective parties. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. 9. It appears from the material on record that the respondent No.2 invited tenders for the work of construction of Upaniyala – Moti Majethi Road, Taluka: Dasada and estimated cost of the work was Rs.20,65,494.68 paise. It also appears from the material on record that the tender of the appellant was accepted for Rs.24,99,248.56 paise and thereafter, the work order came to be issued with a stipulated period of twelve months. The appellant had deposited some amount as security at the time of entering into the contract. It also appears from the record that the appellant had filed the aforesaid suit before the Civil Court seeking recovery of security deposit, loss of profit and amount. The learned Judge has, after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence, framed the issues and answered in negative. That the learned Judge has, after considering the evidence of the representative of the appellant at Exhibit 48 wherein in his cross-examination, he has accepted the fact which goes to the route of the matter, come to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought for by the appellant in the suit were not accepted. The learned Judge, while dismissing the suit, has given cogent and material reason on the basis of the documentary as well as oral evidence in para – 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and order and also observed that the appellant has failed to establish the case and it is an admitted fact that the C/FA/2956/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 appellant has not completed the work within stipulated time. The learned Judge has, while deciding the suit, has discussed the relevant facts in paras – 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment and order. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Judge is in consonance with the facts and law and even the appellant himself has, in his cross examination, admitted such aspects and, therefore, the learned Judge not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and hence, the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is hereby confirmed. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings of the case to the concerned Court forthwith. Pending civil application/s if any shall stand disposed of forthwith. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/06/2025 16:43:55