7 5.08.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FAT 410 of 2019 Kakali Basu Vs. Uluberia Municipality & Ors. Mr. Amitava Ghosh Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey Mr. Nirupam Sarkar Mr. Sourave Chatterjee …For the appellant Mr. Gobinda Chandra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Sourav Goswami …For the Uluberia Municipality 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 2 July 2019 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Uluberia in Money Suit no.17 of 2013. 2. Briefly, the plaintiff had filed this suit in respect of a works contract for “Construction of Dwelling House (single storied) and basic infrastructure (concrete roads, drains, etc.) at Nimdighi Purba Para Slum in Ward No.9 (Part-III)”. The contract amount of Rs.64,40,000/- and was to be completed within nine months from 6 December 2008. The contract was executed in a printed form which, inter alia, provided that the appellant would be paid extra Rs.20,000/- for each unit i.e. addition to the above contractual amount of Rs.5,40,000/- for 27 units. 2 3. In view of nonpayment of bills, the appellant was compelled to file, this suit. By a judgment and decree dated 2 July 2019, the Learned Court has been pleased to pass a decree in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.10,13,887/- but refused to pass any amount in respect of interest and costs. 4. The instant appeal is limited to the short question as to whether the appellant is entitled to any interests and costs. 5. Significantly, there is no cross-appeal preferred against the impugned judgment and decree. 6. The Trial Court framed six issues which are set out below: i. Is the suit maintainable? ii. Is the suit barred by principle of estoppels, waiver & acquiescence? iii. Is the suit barred by limitation? iv. Is there any cause of action for filing this suit? v. Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree as prayed for? vi. What other relief/reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to? 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was entitled to Rs.10,13,887/- and inter alia decided the issues in following manner: Issue No.3: The Learned Court has held that “the suit is not barred by limitation. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff”. Issue No.4,5 and 6: All these issues were decided conjointly by the Learned Court which relates to cause of action, entitlement to get the decree as prayed for and other relief or reliefs. 3 8. On behalf of the Municipality, it is submitted that no final bill has been submitted by the appellant and hence there is no obligation of the Municipality to make payment in terms of the decree. There has also been no challenge to the decree by the Municipality and the same has become final and binding insofar as the Municipality is concerned. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in a commercial contract of such nature the appellant is entitled to any interest or costs. 9. The plea of the Municipality that the job was not completed is untenable in the absence of any appeal or cross appeal the Municipality cannot assail the impugned judgment and decree. In such circumstances, all submissions made on this aspect of the matter are rejected. 10. The subject matter of the dispute is a commercial transaction between the parties. The suit was filed as far back 2013 and it is only fair, just and equitable that the appellant be paid interest. To this extent the appeal succeeds. 11. In view of the above, FAT 410 of 2019 is allowed to the extent, that the respondent Municipality shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.12 lacs to the appellant forthwith and positively within fourteen days after the final bill has been raised by the appellant. In default, liberty is granted to the 4 appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt if permissible in accordance with law. Accordingly, FAT 410 of 2019 stands disposed of. 12. Urgent certified photostate xerox copy of this order be supplied to the parties after compliance with all necessary formalities. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]