Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Sk. Salim — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Sk. Salim — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment and decree dated 29th November, 1999 in T.S. 21 of 1996 set aside; F.A. 61 of 2000 allowed and disposed of; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly allowed the plaintiff/respondent's claim for extra work (drivage of two inclined shafts from upper Kajora seam (R-IX) to Lower Kajora seam (R-VIII) of Lachipur) done outside the scope of the principal work order and/or contract. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned judgment and decree dated 29th November, 1999 passed in T.S. 21 of 1996 is erroneous and is consequently set aside.

Ratio / Principle

From the deposition of D.W.-2, Shree Chand Sahajwani, there is no admission whatsoever that extra work was entrusted to the plaintiff/respondent; a note sheet was duly prepared for the extra work but the same was not entrusted to the plaintiff/respondent.

Key takeaways

D.W.-2 categorically denied that any extra work was at all performed by the plaintiff/respondent.ratio¶12
The findings of the learned Trial Judge of admission on the part of D.W.-2, the appellant's witness, are wholly erroneous.ratio¶13
There is substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee that the plaintiff/respondent may have inflated his claim by doubling the price and quantum of work performed by him.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First appeal by Eastern Coalfields Limited against the judgment and decree dated 29 November 1999 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansol in Title Suit No. 21 of 1996, which had allowed the plaintiff's claim for extra work — drivage of two inclined shafts from underground working of upper Kajora seam (R-IX) to Lower Kajora seam (R-VIII) of Lachipur, the work having been entrusted on 29 May 1992 after NIT with the plaintiff succeeding as lowest bidder. The Division Bench held that the Trial Judge had wholly erroneously recorded 'admissions' by D.W.-2 (Shree Chand Sahajwani): in fact D.W.-2 stated only that a note sheet was prepared for the extra work, that it was not entrusted to the plaintiff, and categorically denied that any extra work was performed. Concluding that the Trial Judge misdirected himself in passing the judgment and decree, the Court set the judgment and decree aside, allowed and disposed of F.A. 61 of 2000, disposed of pending applications, and made no order as to costs.

10.06.2026 Court No.13 Item No. 9 sp

FA 61 of 2000 Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs.

Sk. Salim & Ors.

Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Mr. Siddharth Chamria.

…. For the appellant.

Respondents are not represented despite service.

The instant appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 29^th November, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansol in Title Suit No. 21 of 1996.

By the said judgment and decree, the Trial Court allowed a claim for extra work of drivage of two nos. of inclined shaft from underground working of upper Kajora seam (R-IX) to Lower Kajora seam (R-VIII) of Lachipur. The work was entrusted on 29^th May, 1992 after NIT was issued and the respondent/plaintiff succeeded as a lowest bidder. For the principal work done under the contract, the plaintiff/respondent was duly paid all dues. The said dues came to be paid pursuant to a decree passed in T.S. No. 19 of 1996.

The instant suit was filed subsequent to the earlier T.S. 19 of 1996. The claim in the instant suit was towards extra work done outside the scope of the

2

principal work order and/or contract. The learned Trial Judge at internal pages 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment recorded several admissions on the part of the second witness of the appellant/defendant.

This Court, however, notes from the deposition of said D.W.-2, Shree Chand Sahajwani that there is no such admission whatsoever. The said D.W.-2 has not admitted that extra work was entrusted to the plaintiff/respondent. What was stated in evidence is that note sheet was duly prepared for the extra work but the same was not entrusted to the plaintiff respondent. There is categorical denial by D.W.-2 that any extra work was at all performed by the plaintiff/respondent.

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the findings of the learned Trial Judge of admission on the part of the D.W.-2, appellant’s witness is wholly erroneous. There is substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee that the plaintiff/respondent may have inflated his claim by doubling the price and quantum of work performed by him.

In the light of the evidence of D.W.-2 in the Trial Court and the corresponding erroneous finding of fact by the Trial Judge, this Court is of the unequivocal view that the Trial Judge has misdirected himself into passing the judgment and decree.

3

The impugned judgment and decree dated 29^th November, 1999 passed in T.S. 21 of 1996 is, therefore, erroneous and consequently set aside.

F.A. 61 of 2000 is allowed and disposed of.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)