Municipal Committee Jhajjar through Its Executive Officer Vs Gordhan Dass and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Municipal Committee Jhajjar through Its Executive Officer Vs Gordhan Dass and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the concurrent findings of the Courts below were upheld and the regular second appeal was dismissed; miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, also stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the electrical work at District Sports Parishad, Nehru Stadium, Jhajjar was executed under the aegis of / at the instance of appellant-defendant No.1 so as to fasten liability for payment upon it, in the absence of any written contract or contemporaneous record of engagement. +1 more

Court's answer

The circumstances cumulatively leave no doubt that the work was carried out under the aegis of appellant-defendant No.1 (Municipal Committee Jhajjar) and the liability to ensure payment rested with it.

Ratio / Principle

The testimony of PW-3 (Storekeeper, District Sports Office, Jhajjar), read with the resolution of the committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar on 31.08.2016 and the communication dated 30.01.2017 (Ex.P-4), establishes that such works and payments were to be routed through agencies like the Municipal Committee, and the amount payable to plaintiff-respondent No.1 was to be disbursed through appellant-defendant No.1.

Key takeaways

The approach adopted by the learned Courts below suffers from no perversity or illegality, and the liability of appellant-defendant No.1 towards plaintiff-respondent No.1 stands duly established.ratio¶27
No merit exists in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and no substantial question of law arises for consideration; the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA-2767-2025 O&M) — Suit for recovery — Plaintiff-respondent No.1, an electrical contractor, pleaded he was engaged by appellant-defendant No.1 (Municipal Committee Jhajjar) to execute electrical work at District Sports Parishad, Nehru Stadium, Jhajjar, completing it in June 2015 at a cost of Rs.2,58,491/-; bill verified by the Additional Sub-Division Engineer (Electrical), Panchayati Raj, Rohtak, but payment withheld — On his representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, by order dated 31.08.2016 constituted a four-member committee headed by SDO (Civil) which found the claim genuine and directed payment through appellant-defendant No.1 — Trial Court decreed the suit on 18.05.2023; first appeal dismissed on 26.05.2025 — Held (Amarinder Singh Grewal, J., oral): testimony of PW-3 read with the committee resolution dated 31.08.2016 and communication dated 30.01.2017 (Ex.P-4) clearly establish that such works and payments were to be routed through agencies like the Municipal Committee and the amount payable was to be disbursed through appellant-defendant No.1; absence of a formal contract and denials in the written statement cannot outweigh the categorical findings of the committee; concurrent conclusions of the Courts below suffer from no perversity or illegality; liability of appellant-defendant No.1 duly established; no substantial question of law arises — Appeal dismissed; misc. applications disposed of. No precedent cited; no statute invoked in the judgment.

RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

129 RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.08.2025

Municipal Co m mittee Jhajjar ... Appellant

Versus

Gordhan Dass a nd others

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: M r . Ashish Yadav, Advocate fo r the appellant. *******

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

T h e defendant No.1 is the appell a nt before this Court challengin g the judgment and d ecree dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for rec o very filed by the plaintiff-resp o ndent No.1 and the judgment d ated 26.05.2025 pa s sed by the learned 1^st Appe l late Court vide which the appeal preferred by th e m against the aforesaid judgm e nt and decree passed by the lea r ned trial Court, has been dismissed.

S u ccinctly, the facts of the case a r e that the plaintiff-respondent N o.1, an electric co n tractor with MC Jhajjar, was e ngaged by the appellant–defendant No.1 to execu t e electrical work at the Distri c t Sports Parishad, Nehru Stad i um, Jhajjar, which h e completed in June 2015 at a c ost of Rs.2,58,491/-. The bill r a ised by the plaintif f- respondent No.1 was duly veri f ied by the Additional Sub-Div i sion Engineer (Ele c trical), Panchayati Raj, Roht a k, but the payment was with h eld despite repeat e d requests. On 31.08.2016, t h e Deputy Commissioner, Jh a jjar, constituted a four-member committee on the plaintiff-respondent N o .1’s representation, which found the he is entitled t o the said amount and directed that

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) -2-

appellant–defe n dant No.1 make the payment. In pursuance, appellant–defen d ant No.1 sought f u nds from defendant No.2, but the latter failed to do the ne e dful without any j u stification. Consequently, the defendants remained jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs.2,58,491/-, which along with accrued int e rest @ 12% per an n um from July 2015 amounted t o Rs.3,25,697/- at the time of f i ling the suit. Despi t e service of legal notice dated 14.07.2017, no payment was m ade, leading to insti t ution of the present suit.

U p on notice of the suit, appellant – defendant No.1 appeared and f iled written statem e nt taking objection that it had n ever asked the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to undert a ke the electrical work of Distri c t Sports Parishad at Nehru Stad i um, Jhajjar. It was p leaded that the said premises d o not belong to appellant–defendant No.1, and ther e fore, there was no occasion for it to engage the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for such w ork. It was further averred th a t the appellant–defendant No.1 has no concern w h atsoever with the work alle g edly carried out by the plai n tiffrespondent No . 1 at the said venue, and that t h e plaintiff-respondent No.1 ne i ther submitted any b ill nor made any representatio n before its office for release o f the claimed amou n t of Rs.2,58,491/-, as the bill i n question did not pertain to it. All other avermen t s of the plaint were specifi c ally denied and dismissal of the suit was praye d for. 4. O n the basis of pleadings, learne d trial Court had framed as ma n y as two issues including relief. On appreciatio n of oral as well as docume n tary evidence prod u ced before it, the learned trial C o urt decreed the suit of the plai n tiffrespondent No.1and the appeal preferred by t h e defendants was also dismisse d by the learned 1^st A ppellate Court. Hence, the reg u lar second appeal.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) -3-

L e arned counsel for the appell a nt, inter alia , contends that the plaintiff-respo n dent No.1’s own witnesses, n a mely PW-2, Light Inspector, and PW-3, Sh. De v ender Verma, Storekeeper, D istrict Sports Office, Jhajjar, h ave categorically a d mitted in their depositions that no work was executed by plai n tiffrespondent No . 1 for the appellant and that th e appellant had no liability to w ards him. Further, b oth the learned Courts below committed error in placing h e avy reliance upon E xhibit P-4, the letter dated 30. 0 1.2017 allegedly issued by the t hen Secretary, Mu n icipal Council, Jhajjar, which, e ven if taken to be correct, doe s not indicate that t he plaintiff-respondent No.1 h ad undertaken the work on the instructions of o r for the benefit of the appella n t-defendant No.1. It is further u r ged that the findi n g recorded by the learned C o urts below, to the effect that the appellant-defe n dant No.1 had not disputed the e xecution of work or the bills r a ised by the plainti ff -respondent No.1, is factually incorrect inasmuch as the wr i tten statement filed by the appellant contains a cat e gorical and specific denial of b oth. Learned couns e l also submits that there was admittedly no written contra c t or contemporaneous record evidencing any eng a gement of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by the ap p ellant-defendant No.1 for carr y ing out the alleged work at Di s trict Sports Parisha d , Nehru Stadium, Jhajjar, a n d, in the absence of any cogent evidence, fast e ning liability upon the app e llant-defendant No.1 was w h olly unjustified.

H a ving heard learned counsel fo r the appellant-defendant No.1, this Court finds n o force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Ad m ittedly, that the plaintiff-respo n dent No.1 had specifically ple a ded and duly prov e d execution of electrical work at District Sports Parishad, N e hru Stadium, Jhajj a r, at the instance of appellant- d efendant No.1. It is the case o f the

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) -4-

plaintiff-respo n dent No.1 that in affixing and r epairing electrical items at the said premises he h a d spent a sum of Rs.2,58,49 1 /-, but despite raising the bill, no payment was m ade. On the plaintiff-responde n t No.1’s representation, the De p uty Commissioner, Jhajjar, vide order dated 31.08.2016, constituted a committee headed by SD O (Civil), Jhajjar with DSO, Jha j jar, Secretary, MC Jhajjar, and M E, MC Jhajjar as members, which, after due co n sideration, found the claim o f the plaintiff genui n e and directed that the amount be deposited by defendant No.2 in the office of a ppellant-defendant No.1 and thereafter released to the plai n tiff through appell a nt-defendant No.1. Further, the testimony of PW-3, Storeke e per, District Sports O ffice, Jhajjar, read with the resolution of the committee constit u ted by the Deputy C ommissioner, Jhajjar on 31.08 . 2016, as well as the communic a tion dated 30.01.20 1 7 (Ex.P-4), clearly establish th a t such works and payments we r e to be routed thro u gh agencies like the Municipa l Committee and that in the pr e sent case also, the a mount payable to the plaintiff- r espondentNo.1 was to be disb u rsed through appell a nt-defendant No.1. These circu m stances, taken cumulatively, l e ave no doubt that t h e work was carried out under t h e aegis of appellant-defendant N o.1 and the liabilit y to ensure payment rested with i t.

T h erefore, concurrent conclusio n s recorded by the learned C o urts below are fir m ly supported by the pleadings, oral evidence and docume n tary record, includi n g the verification of the bill a nd the resolution of the comp e tent committee. Th e mere fact that there was no formal contract, or that appel l antdefendant No. 1 raised denials in its writte n statement, cannot outweigh the categorical fin d ings of the committee and the supporting material on record. The approach adopted by the learned Courts be l ow suffers from no perversit y or

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

RSA-2767-2025 (O&M) -5-

illegality, and the liability of appellant-def e ndant No.1 towards the plai n tiffrespondent No.1 stands duly established. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts an d circumstances, this Court doe s not find any meri t in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appel l antdefendant No.1, much less, no substantial que s tion of law arises for considera t ion. Consequently, t he concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is up h eld and the instant r egular second appeal is dismissed.

M i sc. application(s) pending, if an y , also stand disposed of.

	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
August 27, 202 5
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh