Authority: High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad

Order Date: 03/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Plaintiff Hirji Jadva Varsani vs Defendant Pindoriya & Co. and Company Limited.
  • Background: The defendant received a state‑government contract to construct police quarters at Mandvi, Kachchh. On 6 January 1992 the defendant subcontracted the work to the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff completed the police staff quarters and later claimed unpaid amounts totaling Rs 5,06,029 (inclusive of interest at 30% p.a.) under multiple heads:
  • Security deposit of Rs 2,85,000 received; Rs 2,60,000 returned, leaving Rs 25,220 principal plus Rs 92,788 interest (subtotal Rs 1,18,008).
  • Additional security amount claimed Rs 1,09,396; only Rs 1,00,000 paid, leaving Rs 9,396 outstanding.
  • Running bill for work: Rs 52,99,761.81; amount paid Rs 51,89,794.81, leaving Rs 1,09,968 unpaid plus interest Rs 42,400.
  • Total amount claimed by plaintiff: Rs 2,79,772, with interest at 30% p.a. from 1 April 1995 to 1 April 1997, leading to the overall claim of Rs 5,06,029.
  • Defendant’s defence: Denied any contractual interest clause, asserted no outstanding dues, claimed plaintiff must clear alleged ‘sales tax’ before settlement, but acknowledged a payable amount of Rs 35,096 from the security deposit since 1994.
  • Trial Court (7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh @ Bhuj) partially decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs 35,096 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
  • Appeal: Plaintiff filed First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC seeking the full amount claimed. Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Ankit Y B Bachani argued the trial court erred in limiting the award and highlighted witness testimony (PW 1 Dilubha Takhubha) and exhibits Exh.106‑107 as admissions of the outstanding amount.
  • Procedural note: Defendant’s counsel Ms. Vidhi J Bhatt failed to appear on 1 April 2026 despite a final opportunity and was also absent on the hearing date, resulting in an ex‑parte consideration.
  • Evidence examined by the High Court included plaintiff’s oral testimony, documentary exhibits (sub‑contract, NOC dated 23.11.1994, Exh.106‑107), and cross‑examination transcripts. The court found:
  • Plaintiff did not produce account books, bills, or corroborative documents to substantiate the claimed amounts.
  • Exhibit 106 was a photocopy, unsigned, without a date, and not admitted as a true account by the defendant; reliance on it was insufficient.
  • Witness Dilubha Takhubha, a Junior Clerk in the Geology Department, testified that no outstanding amount remained against the defendant and that the NOC was required before final bill settlement.
  • The plaintiff’s own counsel suggested the amount of Rs 35,096 during cross‑examination, indicating the plaintiff confined his relief to that figure.
  • Legal principles reiterated: Burden of proof lies on the plaintiff under Sections 101‑102 of the Indian Evidence Act; the plaintiff must prove the existence of the facts asserted. The court cited precedents (District Collector v. Iqbalhussain Ibrahim Shaikh, Rangammal v. Kuppuswami, C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda) emphasizing that mere absence of defence does not discharge the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the First Appeal, upholding the trial court’s decree of Rs 35,096 with interest at 6% per annum.
  • No additional amounts were awarded to the plaintiff.
  • The registry was directed to return any records and pleadings to the concerned lower court forthwith.

Topics: Court Judgment, Civil Procedure, Construction Contract