Entitlement to payment for works executed on oral instructions of government officers under the principle of quantum meruit.

The plaintiff, a contractor, alleged that in August 1996, officers of the defendant (State of Gujarat) orally instructed him to execute urgent earthwork on the Visnagar-Umta-Sundhia-Kheralu Road to facilitate the Ambaji Mata Bhadarva Poonam festival.

Relying on these assurances, the plaintiff completed work estimated at Rs. 4,75,000/- using seven tractors.

Despite repeated demands and a statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC, the defendants failed to pay.

The defendants contended the suit was mala fide and that the plaintiff had not performed the work awarded.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 1,40,000/- with 6% interest.

Both parties appealed: the State against the decree and the plaintiff via cross-objection for the full claim of Rs. 6,44,875/-.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in awarding a partial decree of Rs. 1,40,000/- with 6% interest based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the plaintiff proved his entitlement to the higher claim of Rs. 4,69,000/- plus interest.

The Court applied Section 96 (Appeals from original decrees) and Order XLI Rule 22 (Cross-objections) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

Regarding appellate procedure, the Court relied on Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC and the precedent in *Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava (D) (2017)*, which establishes that an appellate court, as the final court of facts, must reflect a conscious application of mind but need not restate facts if it agrees with the Trial Court’s findings.

For the granting of interest in the absence of a contractual rate, the Court applied Section 34 of the CPC.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court's decision was based on a balanced assessment of conflicting evidence.

While the plaintiff produced various labour vouchers (Exh. 119-161), the Trial Court found many unreliable due to unidentified thumb impressions and lack of independent witness testimony.

However, the defendants' own witnesses, specifically the Work Assistant (Exh. 177) and another officer (Exh. 178), admitted in their depositions that work worth approximately Rs. 1,40,000/- had indeed been executed under their supervision.

The High Court found this admission to be a "cogent, convincing and compulsive" basis for the decree.

Regarding the cross-objection for higher interest and the full claim, the Court noted that there was no written contract or determined rate value to justify the plaintiff's estimate, thus upholding the 6% interest as per the statutory discretion under Section 34 CPC.

It held that the awarding of Rs. 1,40,000/- was legally sound based on the admissions of the defendants' witnesses, and the 6% interest rate was appropriate under Section 34 of the CPC in the absence of a contractual obligation.

The Court ordered the return of the Record and Proceedings to the lower court.