The Managing Director, Kpcl v. Sri. M S Mahesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2020 (MON)

BETWEEN:

¶1THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPCL, NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶2THE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR KPCL, NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶3THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, KPCL, NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶4CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE AND DESIGN) KPCL SUDARSHAN COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, NO.22/23, SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶5SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (E) KPCL ENGINEERING STATION DIVISION, SHIVASAMUDRAM, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 437.

¶6EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), KPCL, SHIVASAMUDRAM, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 437.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUMIT CHATTERJEE FOR SRI. PRADUMNA L N., ADVOCATES) AND:

¶1SRI. M S MAHESH S/O. MALLASETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, K.P.W.D. AND EX-KPCL CONTRACTOR, MANJUNATHA NILAYA, N.E.S. EXTENSION, SHETTHALLI ROAD, MALAVALLI - 571 430.

¶2THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶3THE CHAIRMAN KPCL, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY G HASYAGAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ----

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.58/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALAVALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

¶1This regular first appeal has been filed by the appellants who were the defendants before the Trial Court. Wherein, the case of the plaintiff has been decreed on

23.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.58/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Malavalli.

¶2The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court henceforth will be considered as it is for the convenience.

Factual matrix of the case:

¶3The case of the prosecution is that the plaintiff was a Class-I Civil Contractor. The defendants – Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) had entered into an agreement dated 13.04.2015 with the plaintiff for laying a road of 500 meters length and 06 meters width at Mallikyatanahalli upto SFC, Shivanasamudra.

¶4The letter of award dated 11.04.2015 was issued to the plaintiff and work had been assigned as per the said award. The work was about to be completed, however, the plaintiff was asked to do additional work without calling for any tender. The plaintiff after completing the said work has raised a bill for a sum of Rs.11,68,127/-. As the defendants did not pay the amount relating to the additional work the plaintiff has filed a suit for seeking the relief of directing the defendants to pay the amount as stated in the plaint.

¶5On the contrary, the defendants had filed the written statement and submitted that the alleged extra work done by the plaintiff was enquired by the Committee by way of conducting joint survey. As per the said joint survey, the defendants had to pay a sum of Rs.3,13,875/- and a letter was written to the plaintiff on 06.07.2017 asking him to enter into supplementary agreement as required under the rules to make the payment. However, the plaintiffs have failed to do the same. In fact, the plaintiffs had not produced any documents relating to extra work done by him. The amount on which the plaintiff was claiming is exorbitant and they were not liable to pay the said amount.

¶6The Trial Court has framed issues on the basis of the averments of the plaintiff and written statement and rendered the judgment and decree stating that the defendants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,68,127/- together with 9% interest per annum.

¶7Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellant/defendants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is against to the law, evidence and facts. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶9It is further submitted that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the case that extra work was entrusted to him to complete the said project and he has done the said work.

¶10It is further submitted that none of the parties have produced the measurement book to demonstrate the actual work carried out by the plaintiff. In the absence of documentary evidence regarding additional work assigned to the plaintiff, the Trial Court ought not to have arrived at a conclusion that additional work has been done to the extent claimed by the plaintiff.

¶11It is further submitted that as per the joint survey conducted by the defendants some additional works were carried out by the plaintiff without knowledge of the defendants. Considering the same the amount of Rs.3,13,875/- was fixed. However, the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record directed the defendants to pay the amount of Rs.11,68,127/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is erroneous and the said judgment and decree has to be set aside.

¶12Per Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that several documents were produced and six documents have been marked. Plaintiff has made several letter correspondences with defendant Nos.1 and 5.

¶13It is further submitted that the cross-examination of P.W.-1 and evidence of P.W.-2 to P.W.-5 supported the nature of work done by the plaintiff. Ex-P.69 is the estimate and the defendants have not disputed the same. The defendants have not produced the

measurement books which required for real adjudication. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly drawn the adverse inference and allowed the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court is appropriate and it requires unaltered.

¶14Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Trial Court in passing the judgment and decree of the plaintiff. The Trial Court on considering the averments of the plaint and also the written statements has formulated the following issues which are as follows: ISSUES

¶1Does the plaintiff prove that, he has carried out the extra work at the cost of Rs.11,68,127/- assigned by the defendants?

¶2Does the defendants prove that, SR rates used by the plaintiff in arriving at the estimate is not as per the work orders?

¶3Does the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

¶4What order and decree?

¶15On considering the said aspect, the following points would arise for my consideration, they are: a) Whether the findings of the Trial Court in respect of extra work carried out by the plaintiff is justified? b) Whether the Trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff? c) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has not carried out the work as per the estimation claimed by him?

¶16The point Nos. "a" and "b" are inter-connected with each other. Hence, these points would be considered together. Both P.W.-1 and D.W.-1 reiterated their respective pleadings. The pleadings of the respective parties would emerge that the plaintiff is a Class-I Civil Contractor and the defendant No.1 is the Managing

Director and the defendant No.2 is the Technical Director and the defendant No.3 is the Finance Director and defendant No.4 is the Chief Engineer (Electric & Designer) of KPCL, Bangalore, defendant No.5 is the Superintendent Engineer, defendant No.6 is the Executive Engineer (Civil) of KPCL, Shivana Samudra, defendant No.7 is the Chief Secretary at Government of Karnataka, defendant No.8 is the Chairman of KPCL, Bangalore.

¶17The evidence of D.W.-1 would indicate that the plaintiff has made letter correspondence with defendant No.4 and brought to the knowledge of the department that additional work carries more money than the actual work entrusted to him. It is also admitted that the plaintiff had brought to the knowledge of the defendants in respect of the works to be carried out by using machines. Though, the defendant had admitted that the work carried out by the plaintiff has been mentioned in the measurement book, he failed to produce the said measurement book.

¶18On going through the evidence of D.W.-1, he admitted that additional work was carried out by the plaintiff. However, he denied the price quoted by the plaintiff.

¶19Be that as it may, the documentary evidence would indicate that the plaintiff had made several letter correspondences to the defendants regarding the work carried out by him and also the estimation of the said work. Though, the defendants relied on the report submitted by the joint survey, the fact remains that it has no evidentiary value for the reasons that the same has been disputed by the plaintiff and the cost and expenditures has not been assigned on the actual value.

¶20On going through the findings of the Trial Court, it appears that no irregularity has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence in rendering the decree. Hence, I decline to interfere with the said findings.

¶21In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered POINT Nos. "a" and "b" - AFFIRMATIVE. POINT No. "c" - NEGATIVE.

¶22Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER i. This Regular First Appeal stands dismissed. ii. The Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.

Sd/-(S. RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM/-