1 CGHC010237902023 2026:CGHC:41853-DB Order reserved on 10.09.2026 Order delivered on 26/09/2026 Order uploaded on 26/09/2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 11 of 2023 1. Election Commission Of India Through The Chief Electoral Officer, Shastri Chowk, Old Mantralaya Premises, Raipur- 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. The District Election Officer Cum Collector Cum Collector, Kondagaon- 494226, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Sub-Engineer Public Works Department (E/m), Kondagaon Sub-Division, Kondagaon- 494226, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department (E/m), Kondagaon Sub-Division, Kondagaon- 494226, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department (B/r), Sub-Division-1, Kondagaon- 494226, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (B/r), Sub- Division-1, Kondagaon- 494226, Chhattisgarh. 6. M/s. Nilesh Tent House And Light Decoration Geedam Road, Nayapara, Jagdalpur- 494001, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Advocate. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.09.26 17:32:45 +0530 2 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushma Sawant, J CAV Order Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 1. Challenge in this miscellaneous first appeal is to the order dated 16.5.2023 in Civil Suit No.38/2019 by which learned Commercial Court (District Level), Nava Raipur, District Raipur has allowed the suit of respondent No.5 herein in part and granted money decree of Rs.69,69,375/- in favour of plaintiff / respondent No.5 herein and against the appellant and other respondents herein. 2. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that respondent No.6 herein is engaged in the business of supply of tents, lights, mikes, etc. Pursuant to notice inviting tender dated 20.9.2013 floated by respondent No.1 inviting bids from eligible bidders for supply of tents, lights, mikes and other materials at District Headquarters Kondagaon, petitioner submitted its bid, which was accepted and respondent No.1 herein issued work order on 7.10.2013 along with list of items to be supplied and their rates, which were applicable till March 2014. After issuance of work order, respondent No.6 supplied required items as and when demanded which were duly used during legislative assembly election 2013. Quantity and quality of materials supplied were verified by respondent No.4 and 5 herein. After 3 completion of work, respondent No.6 submitted bill of Rs.48,33,180/- vide letter dated 12.12.2013 for payment towards supplies made. On the terms and conditions of work order dated 7.10.2013, respondent No.1 issued work order dated 26.3.2014 in favour of respondent No.5 for supply of tents, mike, lights, generators etc. at different places during 2014 Lok Sabha Elections. Rates of supply were to be applicable till 30.6.2014. Pursuant to work order, respondent No.6 supplied tents, lights, mike, generators and other equipments as and when required by respondents herein. After completion of work, on 02.06.2014 respondent No.6 submitted bill of Rs.71,15,694/- for the entire work. Out of final bills submitted on 12.12.2013 and 02.06.2014, a sum of Rs.3,52,980/- and Rs.3,45,920/- was only released by the respondents herein. Respondent No.6 made several requests for payment of outstanding payments and ultimately sent two notices claiming outstanding amount and thereafter preferred writ petitions for redressal of its grievance. Both the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2016 with a direction to respondents No.1 to 5 herein to take decision on the claim of respondent No.6 after verifying invoices submitted by it. Vide order dated 31.3.2016 respondent No.1 rejected claim of respondent No.6 contained in invoices and approved a sum of Rs.1,22,311=75 paise against the total claim of Rs.1,12,48,974/-. 4 3. Aggrieved therewith, respondent No.6 preferred a writ petition and the same was withdrawn with liberty to avail alternate remedy available under the law. Thereafter, respondent No.6 instituted a civil suit for recovery of total outstanding amount of Rs.1,12,49,974/- plus interest @ 12% per annum from 31.03.2016 tp 25.03.2019, from appellant and respondent no.1 to 5 herein, jointly and severally. It was pleaded in the plaint that invoices raised by the respondent No.6 herein are genuine and contain only those items were supplied which were provided in the list annexed with the work orders. Respondents concerned have duly verified, certified and used the items so supplied. They never pointed out any fault in the services provided by respondent No.6. 4. The suit was resisted by defendants by filing written statement. It was pleaded by defendants in written statement that bills raised by plaintiff was not in accordance with the work orders issued and therefore, payment was not made to it., referring conditions of the work order, in particular Condition No.12 according to which rental of equipment will be paid on the basis of its usage period. The claim of plaintiff was placed before the Committee and after verifying the bills, it was opined that only a sum of Rs.1,22,311.75 paise is remaining to be paid to plaintiff and accordingly, a cheque of aforementioned amount was sent to plaintiff through registered post. The suit for recovery in 5 respect of amount alleged to be due of plaintiff is barred by limitation. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Commercial Court framed as many as six issues on 10.2.2020 and afforded opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, oral and documentary both, in support of their respective cases. In view of submission of learned counsel for defendants that suit is barred by limitation, the Commercial Court decided to deal with issue of limitation as the first issue. After going through the pleadings of both sides, documents on record and applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Aries & Aries vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2018) 12 SCC 393; SECL vs B.S. Agrawal & ors, 2013 SCC Online Chh 291, has concluded that the bills for supply of Generator sets etc. were kept on pending for a long time and rejected only on 31.03.2016 (Ex.P-27) the limitation of three years period to file suit would end on 31.3.2019. As such, the suit filed on 27.3.2019 is well within limitation. 6. The Commercial Court further appreciating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respective parties, the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the parties, has decreed the suit of plaintiff in part and while upholding the rejection of claim for rent of those items supplied on oral direction of any officer other than the Collector, allowed the claim regarding rent of Generator Sets to the tune of Rs.69,69,375/- on the ground 6 that generator sets are generally used as a backup source of power and not as a primary source of power, therefore, term ‘actual use basis’ should be considered as a rent on daily basis after supply of generator sets by supplier. Considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi & ors vs Union of India and another, (2009) 7 SCC 372, wherein it was held that normally where a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which money was due, the Commercial Court has granted interest at the rate of 6.75% from 31.3.2016 till actual payment is made. Defendants were held jointly and severally liable for payment of principal amount of Rs.69,69,375/- together with interest @ 6.75 per annum. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Commercial Court, Raipur, defendant No.1 has preferred this first appeal. 8. Learned counsel for defendant No.1/appellant submits that the authority floating a tender or authored tender document is the best Judge regarding the interpretation of terms and conditions enumerated thereunder and if two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. Respondent No.1 invited tenders from eligible tenderers for supply of tents, mike, lights etc. on rent for conducting Legislative Assembly Elections 2013 and Parliamentary Elections 2014 in 7 District Kondagaon. Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) clearly stipulates that the rent shall be payable only for the period during which the items are actually used. In the written statement submitted as also evidence adduced before the Commercial Court, it has been stated categorically that generator sets were not used at any point of time and in support thereof exhibited letter of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited dated 11.3.2020 certifying that there was no tripping during 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections and 2014 Parliamentary Elections. Plaintiff/respondent No.6 has also failed to bring on record any concrete material indicating usage of generator sets during elections period. However, learned Commercial Court without properly appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has erroneously allowed the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.6 towards rent of generator sets. He submits that terms and conditions of a tender are binding in nature and must be strictly construed and no interpretation de hors the express terms is permissible in law. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limted vs Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited and others; (2024) 1 SCC 333 and Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transporters and 8 Suppliers vs New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and others, (2021) 16 SCC 808. 9. He next contended that the suit for recovery pertains to expenditure incurred in connection with two distinct electoral exercises, namely, the Legislative Assembly Elections and the Parliamentary Elections. Learned Commercial Court, without determining the respective contractual obligations of the State Government and the Central Government in relation to the expenditure attributable to each election, has erroneously fastened joint and several liability upon them. 10. He further contended that expenses incurred in connection with assembly elections as well as parliamentary elections are borne and funded by the State Government and the Central Government, but they have not been impleaded as a party to the civil suit and as such, the civil suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 11. He further submits that claim of respondent No.6 was clearly barred by law of limitation. He submits that the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of respondent No.6 accrued on 27.3.2014 when payment was made to it and not from the date of order dated 31.3.2016 and therefore, the suit filed on 27.3.2019 is clearly barred by limitation. However, learned Commercial Court erroneously held that limitation to file suit would start from the date of order of respondent No.1-Collector dated 31.3.2016. 9 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and supports the order passed by learned Commercial Court. He submits that according to rate sheet to be submitted along with tender document, the rent payable for generator sets was inclusive of diesel charges, on the basis of per KV per day. Thus, the agreed basis of payment of rent was the rated capacity i.e. per kilo watt per day, and not actual usage. Therefore, clause 12 of the terms and conditions of tender document shall not be applicable to the present case and the rent rate would be payable on the basis of per KV per day. 13. Respondent No.6 quoted rate of rent for generators as Rs.885/- per kilo watt per day, which was duly approved and accepted by competent authority. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.6 installed generator sets at the required site and maintained their continuous availability for operation in accordance with terms and conditions of tender. Mere non-operation of the generator during contract period would not extinguish the contractual liability to pay rent, particularly when the generators were available for use throughout contract period. However, respondent No.1, by wrongly invoking clause 12 of the notice inviting tender, rejected claim of respondent No.6 for payment of rent of generator sets on the ground that generators were not actually operated during election period. 10 14. He submits that the words ‘actual usage’ have not been defined in the notice inviting tender and if the intention of respondent No.1 was to pay rent solely for engine running hours, then it ought to have been mentioned in the tender document that rent of generator will be paid on ‘per running hour’ or ‘per kilo watt electricity generated’ basis. It is respondent No.1 who was responsible for formulation of the term that the rent of generator, inclusive of diesel, will be paid on per kilo watt and per day basis, therefore, they bear the risk of clarity, if any. It is well settled principle of construction of contract that if the terms applied by one party are unclear, an interpretation against that party is preferred. Since, respondent No.1 has accepted the offer of respondent No.6 at the rate of Rs.885/- per kilo watt / per day and issued work order, he cannot unilaterally alter the agreed billing basis to ‘actual usage’ to the prejudice of respondent No.6. Therefore, the order passed by learned Commercial Court allowing claim of rent of generator sets cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the material on record. 15. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commercial Court has rightly held the suit within the period of limitation because cause of action to institute civil suit accrued in favour of respondent No.6 only after passing of the order dated 31.03.2016 rejecting claim of rent towards generator sets. 11 16. In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has relied upon decisions in case of Multican Builders Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, (2025) SCC Online Cal 734 and (2018) 11 SCC 508; Surguja Bricks Industries Company vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2916. 17. Heard learned counsel for respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned judgment and decree; perused the record received from the learned Commercial Court as well as the documents made available in the paper-book produced by learned counsel for respective parties. 18. On 20.9.2013, the office of respondent No.1 herein issued a notice inviting tender calling bids from the eligible tenderers for supply of tent, light, mike and other related materials (as per list enclosed) on rent basis for its usage in 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections. Respondent No.6 submitted its offer along with its proposed rent in the format prescribed along with notice inviting tender. After completion of tender process, the offer submitted by respondent No.6 was accepted, work order was issued on 7.10.2013 along with approved rate list. After completion of contract, final bill of Rs.71,15,694/- was submitted by respondent No.6 on 12.12.2013. On consent being accorded by respondent No.6 to carry out the work of supply of requisite items/equipments during 2014 Parliamentary Elections at the rates approved vide order dated 7.10.2023 for 2013 Legislative 12 Elections, respondent No.6 was allowed to make supplies. After completion of 2014 Parliamentary Election, final bill of Rs.48,33,180/- was submitted by respondent No.6 on 02.06.2014. 19. Upon submission of bills, respondent No.1 made part payment of Rs.3,52,980/- against Bill dated 12.12.2013 and Rs.3,45,920/- against Bill dated 02.06.2014. When full and final payment of bills was not made to respondent No.6 for sufficient long, writ petition filed before the High Court in which respondent No.1 was directed to consider and decide claim of respondent No.6. By the order dated 31.3.2016, respondent No.1 allowed an amount of Rs.3,19,616/- against Bill dated 12.12.2013 of Rs.71,15,694/- and a sum of Rs.5,08,655/- against Bill dated 02.06.2014 of Rs.48,33,180/-. 20. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 31.03.2016, respondent No.6 instituted a civil suit before the Commercial Court for recovery of Rs.1,12,49,794/- plus interest. By the order impugned, learned Commercial Court partly decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent No.6 herein and while affirming the order of respondent No.1 insofar as it denied the claim for rent for the items supplied pursuant to oral instruction, the learned Commercial Court set aside the order impugned so far as it relates to rejection of claim of respondent No.6 for rent toward generator set, on the ground that generator set was not actual 13 used. The learned Commercial Court accordingly held respondent No. 6 entitled to claim rent for the generator set as also interest thereon @ 6.75% p.a. with effect from 31.03.2016 till actual realization. 21. Case of respondent No.1 before this Court is that according to Clause 12 of the tender conditions, the rent towards generator sets was to be billed by supplier as per actual usage of generator sets and therefore, respondent No.6 is not entitled to claim any amount beyond the payment admissible under the conditions of tender document. Whereas, stand of respondent No.6 is that according to the conditions contained in tender as also format attached with tender document for submitting rate of rent, rate for supply of generator sets can be quoted as ‘on actual usage basis’ or as ‘per KV per days basis, inclusive of diesel’ respectively. Respondent No.6 quoted the rate as Rs.855/- per day basis for supply of generator sets. The rates quoted by respondent No.6 was accepted and acted upon by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 could not, after accepting and acting upon the quoted rate, adopt a different basis for computing the final payment. 22. In the above factual background, the question that arises for consideration is whether the claim of respondent No.6 for rent towards generator set was dependent upon its actual usage or 14 whether such entitlement accrued upon deployment and availability of generator at the site for the contracted purpose. 23. To appreciate submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to relevant conditions of notice inviting tender. On 20.9.2013, a notice inviting tender was issued by respondent No.1 for supply of materials on rent for being used in 2013 Legislative Assembly election in District Kondagaon. As per Condition No.3 of tender document, the successful tenderer shall supply the material at the designated place at his own expense. Condition No.5 prescribes that in case of failure to supply the material in time, the loss, if any, occasioned would be recovered from the bidder as a revenue. Condition No.8 says that the tenderer shall be responsible for supplying and installing all electrical and sound equipment at the designated site as per instructions, carrying out trial testing, and maintaining the equipment until completion of the work. Condition No.12 of the tender says that rent shall be paid only for the period during which equipment is actually used. Condition No.12 is material for the present case, therefore, the same is reproduced herein below:- “12. किराया उतने ही अवधि भुगतने किया जाव ग। धिजातने अवधि त वस्तकिव उपयाग किया जाव ग।" 15 24. Condition No.13 of tender document says that the rates quoted for the materials must be submitted only in the attached prescribed format and the rates submitted in any other format will be considered invalid. Format in which proposed rate for supply of tent, lights etc. is to be submitted is available at Page No.129 of paper book. Perusal of this format/sheet would show that it contains only three columns of ‘Serial No.’, ‘particulars of item’ and ‘proposed rate per day’. Sr. No.40 of this format relates to rent of generator, which reads as under:- “tujsVj ¼ykbZV gsrq½ Mhty lfgr fdjk;k izfr dsOgh izfrfnu” A bare reading of the above quoted portion would demonstrate that rent of generator for light purpose, inclusive of diesel, will be paid on per kilo vatt per days basis. 25. Needless to mention here that the conditions of a tender document are to be interpreted and understood as a whole, keeping in view the nature of contract, the purpose for which the tender was floated, and the nature of the items or services forming part of tender. At the same time, the tender conditions must be coherent, clear and precise because prescription of ambiguous conditions would confer an unfettered discretion on the executive to place a construction of their choice on the expression similar nature of work. 26. Undoubtedly, the expression “actual usage” denotes real and effective usage of an article for the purpose for which it has been 16 supplied or hired. However, in case at hand, the expression ‘actual usage’ has to be understood with reference to what was actually hired and what the contractor was required to perform under the work order. Actual usage in the facts of the case and the purpose for which generator is hired is, its installation, fittings with light on the site and in working condition and not that the contractor has only make it available on spot. 27. It is not in dispute in present case that the tender was for supply of various items including generator set on rent at the place informed by respondent No.1. Thus, the obligation of respondent No.6 under the contract 1was to make available requisite item/ equipment at the desired site in accordance with work order. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.6 has supplied the items/equipment including generator set at the informed site as per work order, which is also evident from certification done by Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, E/M, Sub Division Kondagaon and available from Page No.135 to 143 of paper book. 28. List of rates approved by respondent No.1 for the tenders received for tent/lights and other arrangements is annexed along with work order dated 7.10.213 (Ex.P-9). This list contained approved rates of as many as 40 items to be calculated on quantity basis, such as, per square feet, per seat, per piece and per day. Rent for the items like stage (6x6), tube light and generator set are approved on per day basis. According to this 17 list, a sum of Rs.885/- is approved as rent, inclusive of diesel, on per KW per day for 63KV generator to be supplied by respondent No.6. Hence, it is also not in dispute that, respondent No.1 had accepted the offer of respondent No.6 for supply of generator set at the rate of Rs.885/- per KV per day inclusive of diesel. 29. Smt. Seema Thakur (DW-1), Deputy District Election Officer, Kondagaon has stated in her cross-examination before the Court that tender for generator, which finds place at Sr. No.40 of the work order Ex.P-9, was invited on the basis of rent per day. She has further admitted that Ex.P-9 does not talk of ‘rent on per hour basis’ in respect of any article mentioned thereunder. 30. Thus, approval of rent for generator set on per-day basis, out of 40 items coupled with statement of DW-1 Smt. Seema Thakur, clearly indicates that the tendering authority while approving rate list of materials to be supplied was aware of the very nature and function of a generator set that it serves as a standby or alternative source of electricity and is required to operate only when regular electricity supply is unavailable, interrupted or otherwise insufficient. If the intention of the tendering authority was to make payment on the basis of actual running of the generator, it could have ben expressly provided in tender that payment of rent of generator will be payable on actual running hours basis or consumption of diesel etc. as was done in respect of items like tent, water proof tent, white curtain, chairs, table 18 cloth, tea container, carpet, VIP Chair by approving the rate of rent on per square feet and per piece respectively. In absence of any such stipulation in tender conditions, work order or approved rate list, there is no manner of doubt that the generator set was hired for the period of availability irrespective of its actual operation during that period. 31. When the contractual obligation was to supply and keep the generator available, installed and connected with the electricity line for use at the required site for the requisitioned period coupled with the fact that rate of rent was approved on per KV per day basis, Condition No.12 of tender “ किराया उतने ही अवधि ” भुगतने किया जाव ग। धिजातने अवधि त वस्तकिव उपयाग किया जाव ग। cannot be interpreted mechanically to mean that rent becomes payable only upon actual switching on of the generator. Once the generator was brought to the site together with requisite arrangement for its operation and supply of electricity whenever the requirement for electricity arose, the contractual obligation to keep the generator available for use stood fulfilled. Once the generator is installed, connected with electricity line and is ready for use in emergent situation like failure of electricity, it fulfills the term actual usage, and therefore, the approved rent became payable for the period during which the generator remained so available at the site. Merely because occasion did not arise to 19 start the generator during deployed period cannot justify denial of agreed rate of rent to respondent No.6. 32. In case of The Union of India vs. M/s. D.N. Revri & Co., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 147, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “7. It must be remembered that a contract is a commercial document between the parties and it must be interpreted in such a manner as to give efficacy to the contract rather than to invalidate it. It would not be right while interpreting a contract, entered into between two lay parties, to apply strict rules of construction which are ordinarily applicable to a conveyance and other formal documents. The meaning of such a contract must be gathered by adopting a common sense approach and it must not be allowed to be thwarted by a narrow, pedantic and legalistic interpretation…..” 33. In case of Satya Jain (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors. vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors. reported in ….., Ranjan Gogoi, J (as he then was), elucidated the well established principles of classic test of business efficacy to achieve the result of consequences intended by the parties acting as prudent businessmen. It was opined as under:- “33. The principle of business efficacy is normally invoked to read a term in an agreement or contract so as to achieve the result or the consequence intended by the parties acting as prudent businessmen. Business efficacy means the power to produce intended results. The classic test of business efficacy 20 was proposed by Bowen, L.J. in Moorcock [(1889) LR 14 PD 64 (CA)] . This test requires that a term can only be implied if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract to avoid such (1976) 4 SCC 147 (2013) 8 SCC 131 a failure of consideration that the parties cannot as reasonable businessmen have intended. But only the most limited term should then be implied—the bare minimum to achieve this goal. If the contract makes business sense without the term, the courts will not imply the same. The following passage from the opinion of Bowen, L.J. in Moorcock [(1889) LR 14 PD 64 (CA)] sums up the position: (PD p. 68) “… In business transactions such as this, what the law desires to effect by the implication is to give such business efficacy to the transaction as must have been intended at all events by both parties who are businessmen; not to impose on one side all the perils of the transaction, or to emancipate one side from all the chances of failure, but to make each party promise in law as much, at all events, as it must have been in the contemplation of both parties that he should be responsible for in respect of those perils or chances.” 34. In case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for appellant, it has been held thus:- “36. A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document. A deviation 21 from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better….” 35. In the matter of Multican Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2005 SCC Online Cal 734, the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta had an occasion to consider the expression ‘use’ in the context of Income Tax Act, 1961 and it was observed as under:- “8.The above dictionary meaning clearly indicates that the word "use" means the employment or using a particular article or thing for profitable purpose in relation to business or trade. In relation to a trade or business the expression used for the purpose of business is to be construed in consonance with the kind or character of the business or trade followed by the assessee. It cannot be interpreted without the context of the purpose of the business. While interpreting the word "use" for the purpose of Section 32 in order to allow depreciation, the object and purpose of acquisition of the article or thing and its employment for profitable purpose or its use for taking advantage of would be material and relevant.” 36. In case of Surguja Bricks Industries Company vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2916, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- 22 “27….Likewise, if the interpretation of the tender inviting authority of a particular condition of tender, such as, an eligibility criteria as in the present case is irrational or absurd leading to arbitrary consequences, it would be the duty of a constitutional court to interdict such a decision making process. To hold otherwise would render the very object of judicial otiose.” 37. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for appellant on the decision rendered in GalaxyTransport Agencies (supra) is concerned, the same being distinguishable on facts is of no help. 38. In light of above decisions and in view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that entitlement of respondent No.6 for rent towards generator set is to be determined with reference to the period of contractual deployment and availability of the generator at the site in ready to use condition and not merely with reference to actual usage i.e. hours during which the generator was switched-on for supply of electricity. Being so, finding recorded by learned Commercial Court in the impugned judgment with respect to claim of respondent No.6 towards rent of generator set does not call for any interference and the same is hereby affirmed. 39. Coming to next submission of learned counsel for appellant that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within a period of three years from the date of submission of final bills. 23 40. It is not in dispute that after completion of both the tender works i.e. 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections and 2014 Parliamentary Elections, final bills were submitted by respondent No.6 on 12.12.2013 and 02.06.2014 respectively. When final bills were not accepted for sufficient long, respondent No.6 approached the High Court and only thereafter respondent No.1 vide order dated 31.3.2016 accepted the final bills partially. 41. In case of Aries & Aries vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 393, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “10. Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for filing of a suit for recovery of money for work done by the plaintiff, within three years from the date when the work is done, in a situation where no time has been fixed for payment. Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the other hand, provides for limitation of three years from the date of breach of a contract in a case of a suit for compensation for damages arising out of such breach. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the residuary provision which provides for a suit to be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. 11. In the present case, dehors the correspondences that had been exchanged by and between the parties after the date of final payment i.e. 13-1-1981, the aforesaid date of 24 final payment would have been crucial for determination of the period of limitation for filing the instant suit. However, in the present case, from the correspondences that had been exchanged after the date of final payment, it clearly appears that the plaintiff after receipt of the payment on 13-1-1981, reiterated its claim for additional payment on different counts including escalation and for extra works done. The defendant instead of rejecting the said claim entertained the same and kept the matter pending. Finally, on 6-11-1981 (Ext. P-2) the said claims were rejected. If the claims raised by the plaintiff were entertained and rejected finally on 6-11-1981, it would be reasonable to assume that the cause of action for the suit in respect of the said rejected claims arose on 6-11-1981 and the suit could have been filed at any point of time prior to the expiry of three years from the said date i.e. 6-11-1981 in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit having been filed on 6-11-1984, the same, therefore, will have to be considered to be within the period of limitation. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in holding the contrary.” 42. In case at hand, when respondent No.1 himself has taken final decision in respect of respondent No.6’s final bills dated 12.12.2013 and 02.06.2014 on 31.3.2016, it cannot be said that 25 cause of action to institute suit had arisen in favour of respondent No.6 on the date of submission of final bills dated 12.12.2013 and 02.06.2014. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that the cause of action for seeking recovery of the amount in question arose on 31.03.2016 and therefore, the suit having been filed within three years from 31.03.2016 i.e. on 27.3.2019, can in no manner be said to be beyond the period of limitation in terms of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, submission of learned counsel for appellant that suit was barred by limitation is not sustainable and is hereby repelled. 43. We also do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant regarding non-joinder of necessary party. Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the issue in this regard has been framed by the learned Commercial Court, however, said issue was not argued by defendants and accordingly, the same was decided against the defendants. It is well settled that where a party fails to press an issue before the trial court, they are deemed to have abandoned and waived the same. A plea that was explicitly abandoned or left un-argued before the court of first instance cannot be permitted to be raised subsequently at the appellate stage. Hence, now the appellant cannot be permitted to raise such issue of non-joinder of necessary party. 26 44. In the result, we do not find any substance in this appeal warranting interference in the judgment impugned and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. 45. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge roshan/-