PRAFULCHANDRA G PATEL vs DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3945 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAFULCHANDRA G PATEL & ORS.
Versus
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AB ACHARYA(1137) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 02/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree
th
dated 30.08.2000 passed by the learned 5 Joint Civil Judge, Bharuch (for
the sake of brevity and convenience, hereinafter referred to as “the
Learned Civil Court”), in Civil Suit No.175 of 1992, whereby the suit
instituted by the appellant seeking recovery of damages/dues amounting
to Rs.27,89,319.06 (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Nine Thousand
Three Hundred Nineteen and Paise Six only) along with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from the defendants came to be dismissed, the
appellant has preferred the present First Appeal.
2. The appellant, a civil contractor, entered into Contract Agreement
No. B-2/72 of 1984-85 with the defendant department (Executive
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Engineer, Irrigation Division, District Panchayat, Bharuch) for
constructing a new M.I. Tank at Village Valli, Taluka Jhagadia, District
Bharuch, at the sanctioned tender amount of Rs.26,57,345.91 (Rupees
Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Five and
Paise Ninety-One only) against the estimated cost of Rs.33,33,190
(Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety
only). The work order was issued on 07.06.1984, with a stipulated
completion period between 07.06.1984 and 06.06.1986. Alleging
breaches, delays, non-supply of drawings/designs, change of
specifications, and failure of reciprocal contractual obligations on the part
of the defendant department, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming an
aggregate sum of Rs.27,89,319 (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighty-
Nine Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen only) under seventeen (17)
distinct heads, enumerated as under:
Claim
Amount
Description of Claim
No. (Rs.)
1 On account of work done in hard rock 6,00,000/-
On account of excavation of earth for
2 90,000/-
foundation
3 On account of change in specification design 2,49,700/-
4 On account of rock toe work done in valley 90,000/-
On account of certain prevention and extra
5 1,00,000/-
expenses
6 On account of re-establishment 1,00,000/-
7 On account of preliminary arrangement and
preparation
40,000/-
8 On account of maintenance due to non-
sanction/delay of Letter of Credit
2,45,000/-
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
On account of damage/loss suffered due to
government employees' strike from 02/06/85
to 19/06/85
9
1,09,500/-
On account of price rise @ 15% of the tender
10 3,98,621/-
amount i.e. Rs. 26,57,345/-
On account of prolongation of work / loss of
11 5,31,469/-
profit @ 20%
12 On account of illegal recovery of interest 32,200/-
On account of non-recovery of advance paid
13 22,000/-
to labourers
14 On account of refund of Security Deposit 1,33,328/-
15 On account of final bill 8,000/-
On account of deduction for time limit
16 1,500/-
extension
17 On account of escalation 38,000.00/-
Total : 27,89,319/-
3. The defendant department filed its Written Statement at (Exh.-13)
denying all allegations, contending inter alia that the suit is not tenable at
law and barred by limitation, that designs were supplied along with the
work order, that the plaintiff committed default by failing to complete the
contract work within the stipulated/extended time limit, and that the
materials were prematurely removed from the site before completion.
4. The Learned Civil Court, upon appreciation of the oral evidence of
Prafulbhai Gordhanbhai Patel (Exh.-20), documentary evidence at (Exh.-
162) to (Exh.-172), including the R.A. bill file at (Exh.-165),
undertaking/letters written by the plaintiff at (Exh.-163), (Exh.-166), and
contract conditions, answered Issues Nos. 2 to 5 in the negative and
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
dismissed the suit in its entirety vide order dated 30.08.2000. The
Learned Civil Court specifically observed that the plaintiff gave writings
dated 11.04.1989 and 29.01.1991 promising to complete the work
without claiming any damages if time was extended, and that the delay
was attributable solely to the plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellant has preferred
the present First Appeal. During the course of hearing before this Court,
the Learned Advocate for the appellant has fairly conceded that,
considering the facts of the case on hand, the claims raised before the
Learned Civil Court the details of which have been narrated in the
preceding paragraphs (i.e., Claims Nos. 1 to 13 and Claims Nos. 15 to 17)
are not required to be gone into, and has explicitly not pressed those
claims. Instead, the Learned Advocate has pressed only for Claim No. 14,
which pertains to the refund/recovery of the Security Deposit amounting
to Rs.1,33,328/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight only).
6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, since a precise statement has been
made at bar by the Learned Advocate for the appellant only pressing for
Claim No. 14, the rest of the claims are otherwise not required to be gone
into. However, to avoid any complexity so as not to leave any stone
unturned, this Court has deemed it appropriate to have a brief glance even
as to the maintainability and the findings of rejection recorded by the
Learned Civil Court on those unpressed claims.
7. A perusal of the record and the written synopsis reveals that the
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Learned Civil Court systematically dealt with and clubbed the various
monetary claims raised by the plaintiff under the seventeen distinct heads.
8. Insofar as Claim No. 1 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs only) on account of work done in hard rock is concerned, the
Learned Civil Court observed that though the defendant admitted that the
plaintiff had worked in hard rock, the plaintiff himself had quoted
separate prices in the tender for soft rock at Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only)
and hard rock at Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty-Five only) under item No. 3,
and payment at those rates had already been made in the R.A. bills
produced at (Exh.-165). The claim was, therefore, wholly untenable.
9. With regard to Claims Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Thousand only) on account of excavation of earth for foundation,
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on account of certain prevention
and extra expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on account of
re-establishment and Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) on
account of preliminary arrangement and preparation, the Learned Civil
Court found that no assurance or writing had been given by the defendant
for payment of any extra foundation work executed thrice or for
additional expenses; that the delay was attributable solely to the plaintiff
who failed to engage labourers (who had gone for farm work during
monsoon), failed to obtain the necessary permission from the Geological
Department as required under Clause 38 of the tender, and that materials
including cement had been duly supplied by the defendant as evidenced
by the correspondence and receipts on record. The provision of road
facility and preliminary arrangements for transportation of materials
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
formed part of the plaintiff’s own contractual obligations. These claims
were consequently rejected.
10. As regards Claim No. 3 for Rs.2,49,700/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Forty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred only) on account of change in
specification/design, the Learned Civil Court held that the plaintiff had
produced no document evidencing any change, and Clause 2 of the tender
expressly stipulated that the design of the section of the earthen dam was
under consideration of the Central Design Department and that any
alteration in design would not entitle the contractor to extra payment or
compensation, the same being binding upon him. The claim stood barred
by the tender conditions themselves.
11. In respect of Claim No. 4 for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Thousand only) on account of rock toe work done in the valley, the
Learned Civil Court noted that the plaintiff had himself addressed a letter
dated 22.02.1988 (forming part of the file at Exh.-163) requesting
permission to execute rock work in place of bricks which were
unavailable, and had undertaken to carry out the same at the agreed
tender price; payment having been received accordingly, no extra claim
could be sustained.
12. Qua Claim No. 8 for Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty-Five
Thousand only) on account of maintenance due to non-sanction/delay of
Letter of Credit, the Learned Civil Court recorded that the first R.A. bill
of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) had been sanctioned on
18.10.1984, i.e., within four months of the work order, as clearly borne
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
out from the R.A. bill file at (Exh.-165), thereby completely negativing
any allegation of delay on the part of the defendant.
13. Concerning Claim No. 9 for Rs.1,09,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine
Thousand Five Hundred only) towards damage/loss suffered due to the
government employees’ strike from 02.06.1985 to 19.06.1985, the
Learned Civil Court observed that the plaintiff had produced no evidence
of having employed any labourers during the said period which fell
within the monsoon season; that under Clause 11.2 the work remains
suspended during monsoon and all precautions are required to be taken
by the contractor at his own cost; and that the plaintiff himself had earlier
stated that the labourers had gone for farm work. The claim was thus
devoid of any merit.
14. Turning to Claims Nos. 10, 11 and 17 for Rs.3,98,621/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-One only) on
account of price rise at the rate of 15% of the tender amount,
Rs.5,31,469/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Four Hundred
Sixty-Nine only) on account of prolongation of work/loss of profit at the
rate of 20%, and Rs.38,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Thousand only) on
account of escalation, the Learned Civil Court meticulously analysed
Clause 61 of the tender which restricted price escalation/adjustment to a
maximum of 5% on the estimated amount put to tender for the first three
years, and recorded that the defendant had already sanctioned and paid a
sum of Rs.1,32,867.30 (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Two Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty-Seven and Paise Thirty only) towards such escalation. The
plaintiff had further furnished explicit written undertakings dated
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
11.04.1989 (Exh.-163) and 29.01.1991 (Exh.-166) promising to complete
the work without claiming any damages if time was extended. No
documentary evidence in support of the claimed profit percentage was
produced, and the delay was held attributable to the plaintiff alone. These
claims were, therefore, rightly disallowed.
15. Lastly, as regards Claims Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 16 for Rs.32,200/-
(Rupees Thirty-Two Thousand Two Hundred only) on account of illegal
recovery of interest, Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand only)
on account of non-recovery of advance paid to labourers, Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand only) on account of final bill, and Rs.1,500/-
(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) on account of deduction for
time limit extension, the Learned Civil Court found that the tender
conditions at (Exh.-162) expressly provided for recovery of interest on
loans at the rate fixed by the Government in three equal monthly
instalments with no exception for any idle time; that no account or
document evidencing any advance paid to the labourers/Mukadam was
produced, such engagement being the contractor’s own liability; that the
deduction of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for
extension of time was admitted and stood justified since the extension
had been sought by the plaintiff himself; and that the final bill could not
be prepared in the absence of completion of the work. The contractual
terms fully justified the recoveries and deductions made.
16. Thus, on independently examining the aforesaid claims with
reference to the tender conditions, the R.A. bill file at Exh. 165, the
writings of the plaintiff at Exh. 163 and Exh. 166, and the oral evidence
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
at Exh. 20, the extra claim for hard rock work was already covered by the
separate tender rates quoted by the plaintiff himself and by the payments
made in the R.A. bills.
17. The claims for extra foundation work, prevention expenses, re-
establishment and preliminary arrangements were unsupported by any
written assurance of the department and stood contradicted by the
plaintiff’s own default in engaging labour during monsoon, in obtaining
permission from the Geological Department, and in completing the work
within the stipulated and extended time.
18. The claim founded on alleged change of specification/design was
barred by Clause 2 of the tender, which made any alteration in the design
of the earthen dam binding on the contractor without extra payment.
19. The rock-toe claim stood concluded by the plaintiff’s own letter
dated 22.02.1988 undertaking to execute the work at the agreed tender
price. The allegation of delayed Letter of Credit was falsified by sanction
of the first R.A. bill of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) on
18.10.1984.
20. The strike-period claim lacked any proof of labour having been
employed during the monsoon, when work remained suspended under
Clause 11.2.
21. The claims for price rise, loss of profit and escalation ran contrary
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
to the 5% ceiling under Clause 61, to the escalation of Rs.1,32,867.30/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven and
Paise Thirty only) already paid, and to the plaintiff’s express
undertakings dated 11.04.1989 and 29.01.1991 not to claim damages
upon extension of time.
22. The recoveries towards interest, labour advance, final bill and
deduction of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for
time-limit extension were fully justified by the tender conditions at Exh.
162 and by the admitted incomplete status of the work. The findings of
the Learned Civil Court is based on a sound appreciation of the evidence
on record and calls for no interference.
23. Reverting back to the main claim (Claim No. 14) regarding the
refund of Security Deposit which has been specifically pressed for by the
Learned Advocate for the appellant, it is submitted by the Learned
Advocate that as per the conditions incorporated in the agreement, the
amount of the security deposited was subject to release/return after
completion of the contracted work.
24. Thus, while referring to the aforesaid clause and taking us through
the material and ocular evidence led before the Learned Civil Court, it is
submitted that the entire work was completed and the last RA bill was
paid, and therefore, the security amount is required to be refunded by the
defendant after the expiry of the maintenance and guarantee period. Thus,
it is submitted that even no cogent reason has been given by the
defendant-respondent herein for not preparing the final bill, despite the
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
appellant having completed the work. It is argued that the Learned Civil
Court has failed and committed a grave error while relying on the
reply/written statement filed by the defendant, which otherwise does not
fulfill the requirements of the agreement in question.
25. To substantiate his submissions and arguments, the Learned
Advocate for the appellant has pressed for the provisions of Section 55 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and has submitted that where a contract is
to be performed within the time agreed between the parties, but if the said
time limit is extended, then the other side cannot claim any benefit or
penalize the performance of the promise beyond the time originally
agreed upon. While equating the same to the facts of the case on hand, it
is submitted that the contract in question was to be completed within a
period of 2 years; however, the time period was extended at the request of
the appellant herein, without there being any negligence attributable to
the appellant.
26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions and upon re-evaluating
the evidence on record, so far as the claim for recovery/refund of the
Security Deposit is concerned, under the governing terms and conditions
of the tender agreement, the return/refund of the Security Deposit is
subject to the strict condition precedent that the contractor executes and
completes the entire allotted work satisfactorily, leading to the formal
issuance of a Completion Certificate by the department.
27. It is an admitted position on record that the original contract period
from 07.06.1984 to 06.06.1986 was extended from time to time up to
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
31.03.1990 vide Resolution Nos. 137, 254, 456, and 127 upon the
applications and undertakings of the plaintiff itself. For the purpose of
preparing the final bill and assessing the site status, an inspection was
carried out and a survey/inspection report was submitted by the
Departmental Engineer, Shri K.G. More. The said expert report
categorically establishes that the work of patching was not complete as
per the required specifications and opinion of the expert.
28. Because the contract work remained incomplete as per the
technical evaluation and expert findings of Shri K.G. More, the defendant
department did not issue a Completion Certificate to the appellant.
Although this Court considered whether a lenient view could be taken
such as granting a partial refund after deducting a nominal percentage
(5%) on equitable considerations, given the passage of time where the
disputed principal amount of Rs.1,33,328/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-
Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight only) has grown
substantially over time, a close examination of the record and the expert
survey report of Shri K.G. More confirms that there was complete failure
on site and the default in non-completing the patching work was entirely
attributable to the contractor. Under the explicit terms of the contract, no
refund of the Security Deposit can be granted in the absence of a
Completion Certificate.
29. In view of the above factual and legal position, the underlying
contract work remained incomplete, as verified by the inspection report
of Engineer Shri K.G. More. The mandatory Completion Certificate was
never issued in favor of the appellant; and the Learned Civil Court was
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026
C/FA/3945/2001 (GJHC240340282001) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
fully justified in holding that, without completing the contract work and
obtaining a Completion Certificate, the appellant is not entitled to the
refund of the Security Deposit.
30. The judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Learned
Civil Court in Civil Suit No.175 of 1992 suffers from no illegality,
infirmity, or error of law.
31. Consequently, the present First Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
32. Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:29:11 IST 2026