Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat and another (appellants) filed a suit for recovery of damages against the contractor Anil J. Jhatakia (respondent) for alleged breach of a contract for the Venu-2 Irrigation Scheme. The contract was awarded on 6-4-1989, with a completion period of 15 months. The appellants claimed the respondent failed to complete the work, leading to termination on 15-11-1991, and that the remaining work was completed by another agency at a higher cost, causing a loss of Rs.6,58,694.16 paisa. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to prove the breach and the quantum of damages. The High Court, in first appeal under Section 96 CPC, affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the appellants' evidence was insufficient to establish the breach or the loss. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the appellants, which they failed to discharge. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Damages for Breach - Burden of Proof - Sections 73, 74 Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The plaintiff must prove the breach and the actual loss suffered. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant committed breach and that the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.6,58,694.16 paisa. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff did not prove the case was upheld. (Paras 3-7)
B) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants-plaintiffs proved the breach of contract by the respondent-defendant and the quantum of damages claimed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in contract damages
- Proof of breach and loss
- Section 96 CPC
- Appreciation of evidence in civil suits
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 997
R/First Appeal No. 5413 of 2007
Ms. Rajvi Shah, AGP for appellants; Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for recovery of damages for breach of contract.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs) sought recovery of Rs.6,58,694.16 paisa with 18% interest from the respondent (defendant) for alleged breach of contract.
Filing Reason
Alleged breach of contract by the respondent in non-execution of work under the Venu-2 Irrigation Scheme, leading to termination and higher costs for completion.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji) dismissed Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2002 on 24.10.2005, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the breach and damages.
Issues
Whether the appellants proved the contract dated 6-4-1989 and its terms?
Whether the appellants proved that the respondent committed breach of contract?
Whether the appellants proved the quantum of damages claimed?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the respondent failed to complete the work within the stipulated time, leading to termination and additional costs.
Respondent contended that the work was delayed due to the appellants' own actions and that the damages claimed were not proved.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove the breach and the actual loss suffered. The appellate court under Section 96 CPC will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...
The brief facts of the case are as follows...
The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for recovery of damages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2002 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji, which was dismissed on 24.10.2005. The appellants then filed the present first appeal under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Gujarat.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
