General Manager (Telecom) BSNL and Ors. Vs. Mahinder Singh - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (03 Jan 2018)

The findings cannot be said to be perverse unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration

MANU/HP/0010/2018

Civil

In facts of present case, Defendants awarded to the Plaintiff the construction work of Thana Kot-Naina Devi OFC route. The Plaintiff started the execution of work by employing the men and machinery and most of the work was executed. But vide letter, Defendant No. 2 informed that, the aforesaid work order stands cancelled and the Plaintiff was requested to submit the left over store to the department. The suit filed by the Plaintiff was decreed by passing a preliminary decree in his favour and against the Defendants directing them to settle the accounts with the Plaintiff for the work executed by the Plaintiff within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the Defendants preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which too, has been ordered to be dismissed vide judgment and decree, constraining the Defendants to file the instant appeal.

A judgment can be said to be perverse if the conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below are contrary in evidence on record, or if the Court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence or the pleadings is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on erroneous understanding of law and of the facts of the case. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would have arrived at. Therefore, unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration, the findings cannot be said to be perverse.

Even though the SDO (T), BSNL, BIlaspur had vide his letter intimated the Plaintiff to stop the work with immediate effect till further orders. But the work allotted in favour of the Plaintiff had not been finally cancelled, but had been postponed and was to abide by the further orders that were to be issued by the Defendants. Likewise, letter that was subsequently issued by SDO (T), Bilaspur, the work was though ordered to be cancelled with immediate effect, however, this again was made subject to directions from the higher authorities.

It has specifically come on record that, the matter was being prolonged by the Defendants on one pretext or the other by not issuing measurement books by its officials to the higher authorities thereby rendering the higher authorities helpless in taking the final decision. Thus, in absence of any final decision, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that the suit as filed by the Plaintiff was time barred. Once the suit of the Plaintiff is held to be within time, then all other questions as were involved in the suit are required to be settled on the basis of the accounts as per the decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court.

The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concurrent findings of fact which are binding on present Court while hearing the second appeal. It is more so, when these findings are neither found to be perverse to the extent that, no judicial person could ever record such findings nor these findings have been found against the evidence nor against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision of law. No question of law much less substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Tags : CONTRACT ACCOUNTS SETTLEMENT