IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4045-2025 (O&M) M/s Subhash Projects & Markeng Limited and another Appellants/Defendants Versus M/s Pilot Engineering Works & Ors. Respondent /Plainff Reserved on : 12.03.2026 Pronounced on : 13.03.2026 Pronounced fully/ operave part : Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate, for the Respondent - Caveator. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment & decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the plainff was partly allowed, and the judgment & decree dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana were modified. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the plainff was held entled to recover a sum of ₹10,90,513/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit ll realizaon. 2.1 The facts necessary for adjudicaon of the present appeal are that the plainff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of hydro mechanical works. The defendants are companies engaged in the execuon of hydro power projects. It is the case of the plainff that the defendants approached it for fabricaon of pen-stock pipes and other related works for Page N: 1 of 5 Pages YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.13 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document hydro power projects being executed in Himachal Pradesh. A quotaon dated 19.12.2007 submiHed by the plainff was accepted and a leHer of intent/work order dated 22.12.2007 was issued in favour of the plainff. The plainff thereaIer executed fabricaon work and raised various bills with respect to work carried out at Luni and IQU project sites. Some payments were admiHedly made by the defendants from me to me. 2.2 According to the plainff, despite compleon of the work, a substanal amount remained unpaid. The plainff ulmately raised a final bill for a sum of ₹29,73,203/-. It was further alleged that certain tools and machinery belonging to the plainff were lying with the defendants. Since repeated requests for release of payment did not yield any result, meengs and communicaons took place between the pares. A meeng between the pares was held on 10.08.2011 and the minutes of the said meeng were recorded. As per the minutes of meeng, the defendants agreed to release an amount of ₹20,00,000/- to the plainff towards seHlement of its claims. It was further recorded that approximately 75 MT - 80 MT of steel plates were lying at the yard of the plainff at Machiyal and the plainff agreed to shiI the said material to the yard of the defendants at Luni site aIer receipt of the payment. The minutes also recorded that the tools and plants belonging to the plainff lying at the defendants site would be returned aIer verificaon. 2.3 However, according to the plainff, the defendants failed to release the agreed amount of ₹20,00,000/- within the spulated period. Consequently, the steel plates lying at the yard of the plainff were disposed of and the plainff received a sum of ₹18,82,690/- from the said sale. AIer adjusng the aforesaid amount, the plainff filed the present suit seeking recovery of ₹38,90,459/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The defendants contested the claim and while admiNng the issuance of work order and the fact that fabricaon work had been entrusted to the plainff, the defendants alleged that the plainff had not carried out the work as per specificaons. It was further pleaded that the plainff had raised bills without compleng tesng and erecon of the fabricated material. The Page N: 2 of 5 Pages YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.13 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendants also took the stand that the seHlement amount of ₹20,00,000/- menoned in the meeng dated 10.08.2011 was condional upon return of the steel plates lying with the plainff. Since the plainff did not return the said plates and instead sold them, it was contended that the defendants were not liable to pay any amount. 4. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and upon appreciaon of the evidence on record led by the pares, the learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit and held the defendants liable to pay a sum of ₹1,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit ll realizaon. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plainff preferred an appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the evidence and observed that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the defendants had awarded fabricaon work to the plainff and that the plainff had executed the same. The appellate court further observed that the minutes of meeng dated 10.08.2011 had been admiHed by the defendants and clearly recorded that the defendants had agreed to pay ₹20,00,000/- towards seHlement of the plainffs claim. The appellate court found that the Trial Court had erred in adjusng the sale proceeds of the steel plates against the seHlement amount of ₹20,00,000/-. According to the appellate court, the adjustment ought to have been made against the original claim of ₹29,73,203/-, parcularly when the defendants had failed to honour the seHlement by making payment within the spulated me. Consequently, the appellate court modified the decree and held that the plainff was entled to recover ₹10,90,513/- (₹29,73,203 minus ₹18,82,690) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. 6. The defendants have now approached this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the First Appellate Court misinterpreted the minutes of meeng dated 10.08.2011. According to the appellants, the payment of ₹20,00,000/- was Page N: 3 of 5 Pages YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.13 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document condional upon return of the steel plates by the plainff and since the plainff sold the plates instead of returning them, the defendants were not liable to make any payment. It is further argued that the appellate court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plainff/ caveator has supported the impugned judgment and submiHed that the execuon of work and the issuance of work order are admiHed facts. It is argued that the defendants had agreed to seHle the claim of the plainff for ₹20,00,000/- but failed to make payment within the agreed period. Once the defendants themselves commiHed breach of the seHlement, the plainff was jusfied in disposing of the material lying at its yard. It is further submiHed that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on proper appreciaon of evidence and do not call for any interference in the second appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and have gone through the record with their assistance. 10. At the outset, it may be noced that the jurisdicon of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal under Secon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to cases involving substanal quesons of law. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the courts below are shown to be perverse or based on misapplicaon of legal principles. 11. In the present case, the issuance of the work order and the execuon of fabricaon work by the plainff stands admiHed. The dispute essenally relates to the quantum of liability of the defendants. The minutes of meeng dated 10.08.2011, which have been proved on record and admiHed by the pares, clearly show that the defendants had agreed to release an amount of ₹20,00,000/- towards seHlement of the plainffs claim. The said minutes further indicate that the payment of the aforesaid amount was to be made within one week and that thereaIer the plainff was to shiI the steel plates lying at its yard. Page N: 4 of 5 Pages YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.13 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the first obligaon under the seHlement was on the part of the defendants to make payment of ₹20,00,000/-. The defendants admiHedly failed to comply with the said obligaon. In these circumstances, the plainff cannot be faulted for disposing of the material lying in its yard when the defendants themselves did not honour the seHlement. 13. The approach adopted by the Trial Court in adjusng the sale proceeds of the steel plates against the seHlement amount of ₹20,00,000/- was not legally correct. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that the sale proceeds were required to be adjusted against the original claim of ₹29,73,203/-, parcularly when the defendants had failed to perform their part of the seHlement agreement. The reasoning recorded by the appellate court is based upon the documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity. 14. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are essenally findings of fact based upon appreciaon of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the said findings. No substanal queson of law arises for consideraon in the present appeal. 15. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Ludhiana are affirmed. 16. Pending applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. 13.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Page N: 5 of 5 Pages YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.13 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document