Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Krishna Water Supply Project, against the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff, P.V. Murthy, a contractor. The plaintiff had submitted tenders for three works of excavation and lining of canal from Tamil Nadu border to Poondi Reservoir reach under the Krishna Water Supply Project. The tenders were accepted, and agreements were entered into. The plaintiff claimed to have completed part of the work and sought payment for the same. The defendants contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work and did not complete it within the stipulated time, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any payment as per the contract terms. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court, in the second appeal, examined the substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the decree in light of the alleged breach of contract. The court noted that the plaintiff had completed some work and the defendants had measured the work but did not pay the full amount. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for work done on quantum meruit basis, but the plaintiff failed to prove the exact amount due. The court set aside the decree and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh determination of the quantum of payment based on the measurement books and other evidence. The appeal was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Government Contracts - Breach of Contract - Quantum Meruit - The plaintiff contractor completed part of the work under three separate agreements with the Public Works Department for excavation and lining of canal. The State defendants contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work and failed to complete within time. The courts below decreed the suit for recovery of amounts due for work done. The High Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to payment for work actually done and measured, even if the contract was not fully performed, as the State accepted the work and did not terminate the contract. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit without considering the breach of contract by the plaintiff. The High Court found that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose, but allowed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the exact amount due. (Paras 11-15) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Quantum of Damages - The plaintiff claimed a specific amount for work done but did not produce proper measurement books or vouchers. The High Court held that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the quantum of work done and the amount payable. Since the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, the decree for a specific sum was set aside. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for recovery of money for work done under a contract when the plaintiff allegedly failed to complete the work within the stipulated time and whether the State is liable to pay for work done beyond the contract terms.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the decrees of the lower courts, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh determination of the quantum of payment due to the plaintiff based on the measurement books and other evidence. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.
Law Points
- Contract law
- Breach of contract
- Quantum meruit
- Earnest money deposit
- Government contracts
- Public Works Department
- Specific performance
- Section 100 CPC
