1. FAISAL ARAB, J.-This suit is for recovery of Rs,8,19,992 for the works carried out by the plaintiff in its capacity as a Contractor which works were awarded by Union Council i.e, Defendant No,2. Counsel for Defence No,2 (UC), who is also appearing for defendant No,3, District Officer, acknowledges that such works have been satisfactorily carried out and bill is pending with defendant No,l for approval.
2. ' Counsel for defendant No,l i.e, CDGK states that bills for the works carried by the plaintiff are not being cleared only for the reason that the defendant No,2, while awarding contract, exceed its budgetary allocations and, therefore, the same could not be paid. He, therefore, submitted that the responsibility for making payments, which is beyond budgetary allocation, squarely lies with the defendant No,2 itself.
3. ' Learned A.A.-G. States that the Province of Sindh has no concern with the non-payment of the plaintiff's outstanding amount.
4. ' In view of the admission made by the counsel for defendants Nos.l and 2 with regard to the works carried out by the plaintiff on behalf of Union Council, there is no other option but to decree the suit in the sum of Rs,8,90,992. With regard to the claim for damages learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the Plaintiff does not press for the same.
5. ' In case of non-payment of the decreetal amount by defendant No,2, the said amount is to be paid by defendant No, 1 in 3 instalments from the further budgetary allocations of defendant No,2.
6. Defendant No,l is directed to process the bail of the plaintiff within thirty days. However, if defendant No, 1 finds that in the award of contract beyond budgetary allocations a particular officer of defendant No,2 could be made personally responsible, then in such eventuality appropriate action may be taken.