UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS (R AND B) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS vs M/S BADRI NATH CONTRACTORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR BADRI NATH JAMMU
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
02
Supp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
RFA No. 39/2026 CM Nos. 4500/2026 & 4501/2026
UT OF JAND K THROUGH COMMISSIOENR SECRETARY PUBLIC
WORKS (R AND B) DEPTT AND ORS.
….. Appellant(s)
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
Through:
(through VC)
M/S BADRI NATH CONTRACTORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR BADRI
NATH JAMMU
….. Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. A Chowdhary, Judge
JUDGEMENT
CM No. 4500/2026:
1. For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 04.10.2025 is condoned. The main
appeal is taken up on board.
2. CM disposed of.
RFA No. 39/2026 :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
04.10.2025 by virtue of which Additional District Judge
P a g e | 2
RFA No. 39/2026
CM Nos. 4500/2026 & 4501/2026
(Commercial Court) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the
trial court) has decreed the suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs. 7,43,777/- preferred by the respondent.
2. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree on the
ground that the learned trial court has grossly erred in
treating the statement of the Executive Engineer of the
appellants as admission of liability of Rs. 7,43,777/- while
passing the impugned judgment. It is further contended that
the learned trial court in view of the pleadings of the parties
was required to frame issues, which has not been done in the
instant case. It is also urged that the plea of limitation raised
in the written statement being mixed question of law and
facts, was required to be decided after full-fledged trial.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record.
4. A suit came to be preferred by the respondent for recovery of
an amount of Rs. 7,43,777/- on account of various works
executed by the respondent as detailed in para (2) of the
plaint.
P a g e | 3
RFA No. 39/2026
CM Nos. 4500/2026 & 4501/2026
5. The written statement was filed by the appellants (defendants
in the suit), wherein besides raising preliminary objections it
was stated that vide Letter No. 1963-65 dated 24.10.2019, the
appellant No. 4 had requisitioned the funds to the tune of Rs.
10.16 lacs for clearing the work done claim from the appellant
No. 2. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 2,72,600/- was
released in favour of the respondent in March 2020 and rest
of the amount of Rs. 7,43,777/- had been demanded under
relevant head so that the claims of the respondent are
processed after verification of the site and following due
procedure.
6. The statement under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure of
Sh. Sanjay Anand, Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division
R.S Pura was recorded who stated that an amount of Rs.
7,43,777/- has been demanded by him time and again from
the Superintending Engineer and the Division has not
released the said amount. As and when the Division would
release the amount, the same would be paid to him.
7. The learned trial court after considering the written statement
and statement made by Sh. Sanjay Anand, Executive
P a g e | 4
RFA No. 39/2026
CM Nos. 4500/2026 & 4501/2026
Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division R.S Pura, making
observations that there are no factual issues between the
parties, decreed the suit vide impugned judgment/decree.
8. Once in the written statement the appellants herein have
admitted that an amount of Rs. 7,43,777/- has been demanded
under relevant head and the same shall be released after
proper verification of the site and following due procedure
and more particularly in view of the statement made by Sh.
Sanjay Anand, Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), R.S Pura, we
do not find any reason to show indulgence. The appeal lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Decree sheet be
prepared.
(M. A Chowdhary) (Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
02.09.2026
Aasif
Whether the order is speaking Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable Yes/No