GUWAHATI, India, April 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on March 24:
1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior assisted by Mr. T. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This regular second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 35/2006, whereby, the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 102/1997 was set aside and reversed.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the respondent herein is a contractor by profession. He was awarded a contract by the present appellants, by issuing a work order by letter No. SLC/CE/9 (1658)/95-96/2084-92 dated 15.09.1995 allotting him a contract work. The said work had to be completed within a period of one month six days from the third day of the date of the order. By his letter No. SLC/CE/9(1658)/95-96/2452-54, dated 05.10.1995 had requested the present respondent to enter into a formal agreement within seven days of the date of the letter. Thereafter, the present respondent entered into the agreement with the appellants on 06.10.1995 and thereafter he started the work as per the terms of the contract with effect from 08.10.1995. It has been contended by the present respondent before the trial court that when the work was about to be completed, on 11.11.1995, the present respondent/plaintiff received a letter dated 02.11.1995 issued by the present appellant No. 4 alleging that the present respondent had failed to start the work till that date and asking him to show cause as to why the contract agreement should not be rescinded for breach of contract on his part. Before the aforesaid letter, the respondent had on 10.11.1995 sent a letter to the present appellants mentioning about the progress of the work and that he had completed 97% of the work and that the remaining work would be completed within short period of time. Again, after receipt of letter issued by the appellant No. 4 on 02.11.1995, the present respondent wrote another letter to the appellants, on 13.11.1995, intimating and reiterating that the 90% of the contract work has been completed by him and the remaining part would be completed very soon.
4. It was contended by the present respondent that the letter dated 02.11.1995 written by the appellant No. 4 to him was received by him only on 11.11.1995. On 18.11.1995, the present respondent received another etter from appellant No. 4 bearing number SLC/CF/9(1658)/95-96/3111- 14, dated 13.11.1995, by which the contract was rescinded and the earnest money paid by the respondent was forfeited. On 16.11.1995, the appellant No. 4 sent a telegram to the respondent directing him to remain present on 18.11.1995 for taking measurement of the jhama bricks collected at the work site in presence of technical staff. Thereafter, the respondent received another letter dated 28.11.1995, whereby the present respondent was threatened that he would be blacklisted as his claim of completion of 97% percent of work was a false claim.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BLmhUgkPq1HQJFlk9l6smLtgzI892ac2Vx0b8bm18tvE&caseno=RSA/238/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010010512012&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
