' Respondent's suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,11,773 against the appellants was decreed by the learned trial Court, on 16-11-1992; appellants preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed.
Hence .This appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in order to hold Local Body Convention, as certain arrangements were required, therefore, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, (General), Lahore, vide letter dated 13-12:1983 (Exh. P.1), invited quotations inter alia, from the respondent, who was engaged in the business of arranging such functions, by providing Shamianas, chairs, tables, etc. It may be pertinent to state here that the Convention was for three days, which was to start from '22nd December, 1983 (afternoon) and to end by 24th (afternoon); the appellants submitted the quotations Exh.P.2, in which, per item rates were mentioned. The quotation was accepted by the respondent/ADC(G) on 19-12-1983 and it was made clear for the acceptance of the same by expressing that "your quotations . For the supply of furniture, Shamianas, Kanat, etc., for Local Bodies Convention being held at Bagh-e-Jinnah, on 24-12-1983 is accepted. Now you should take such steps as to finalize all the arrangements by 22-12-1983, afternoon and get a certificate of actual supply made for the preparation of bill of the items. The material should be taken back on the afternoon on 24-12-1983". Although after the above, no further action was required in the matter, yet the appellants alleged to have addressed a letter dated 20-12-1983, Exh.P.4, the receipt whereof, has been denied by the respondent, and in paragraph No.5 thereof, it is stated that the charges of the respondent shall be for five days. Any how, thereafter, work order was issued to the respondent and function was continued; thereafter, the respondent submitted its bill amounting to Rs.1,68,400 on the basis of the charges for five days, which was disallowed by the appellants, who only paid an amount of Rs.56,627 i.e. The charges for two days, as a result of which, respondent was constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount mentioned therein. The suit was contested by the appellants and out of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,11,773 from the defendants? OPP . (5) Relief.
3. Oral as well as documentary evidence, of both the sides has keen recorded and the learned Civil Judge, while deciding Issues Nos.1 to 3, against the appellants and by returning the findings on Issue No.4, in favour of the respondent, had allowed the suit, through judgment and decree dated 16-11-1992. On appeal by the appellants, it has been upheld.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants had never agreed for the charges of five days, because the Convention was to start from 22nd afternoon and to finish on 24th (afternoon), so calculating the time, it is two days, for which the furniture, etc. Was required, and practically used, for which payment according to the rates quoted by the respondent, the money 'has been paid.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent by making repeated reference to Exh.P.4 argued that before the commencement of the work and issuance of the work order, it was made clear to the appellants that the respondent would charge for five days and it is verbal promise to this that the appellants arranged the function and supplied the .Goods. It is also argued that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, should not be upset in the second appeal, because there is no illegality in the said judgments and decrees, which also does not suffer from any vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and even are not contrary to law.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the most important documents in the case are the letters dated 13-12-2000 Exh.P.1, through which, the quotation was sought; Exh.P.2, which is the quotation of the respondent and the letter Exh.P.3, dated 19-12-1983 by virtue of which, the appellants were awarded the requisite work, wherein it is clearly specified, as to when the arrangement should be finalized; the furniture, etc. Must be arranged, and taken back. Letter Exh.P.4, as mentioned earlier, the receipt whereof, has been denied by the appellants. Even otherwise, notwithstanding the said letter, contract for supply , of goods had become final between the parties on account of the letters Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.3; respondent was only obliged to provide the goods for the period of the Convention i.e. 22nd afternoon till 24th. Now if the respondent had to transport, pitch and place the items at the venue a day before the Convention and could remove those a day after, and the charges for transportation etc, were also included in the quotation; the contract between the parties in terms of the letters Exh. P.1 to Exh.P.3, when finally concluded, thereafter, any change in the terms could only be made reciprocally by the parties; the respondent, therefore, could not ask for the payment, for that period, when the goods were not physically used by the appellants, merely for the reason that some mention for the charges for 5 days, was made in the letter Exh.P.4; this would not mean that there was any novation of contract, between the parties and the appellants agreed to pay the demand of the respondent.
Unfortunately, the Courts below have not kept this aspect in view and basically considered Exh.P.4, for granting the relief, which document is not on the record of the appellants and the receipt thereof, has been denied. Moreover, this is only a copy of the original and has not been proved in accordance with law; no attempt was made for the production of the original of the said document and the copy without proving the case for secondary evidence, was inadmissible in evidence. Thus on this reason too, no much reliance could have been placed on Exh. P .4 .
' In the light of above, I find that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be modified and the appellants are duty bound to pay the respondent a further amount of Rs.28,313.5, besides the amount of Rs.56,627 already paid, as the charges for the third day as well, because the Convention went on for three days' and the total of the two amounts mentioned above, shall be for the use of the goods for three days i.e. 22nd, 23rd and 24th. But for the remaining two days, respondent is not entitled, therefore, to this extent, the judgments and decrees are illegal, which are hereby set aside and the suit of the respondent in this regards, stands dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the suit of the respondet, is- decreed to the tune of Rs.28,313. No order as to costs.