Present:

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal

and

Mr. Justice Md. Mansur Alam

First Appeal No. 53 of 2015 In the Matter of:

Md. Shahidul Islam proprietor of M/s Islam Engineering Works, Khulna

                               …......Plaintiff-appellant.

        -Versus-

Chief  Engineer  (Mechanical  and  Electric), Mongla Port Authority and another

                   …....Plaintiff-respondents.

Ms. Zobaida Parvin, Advocate

……. For the appellant.

Mr. Md. Yusuf Ali, D.A.G with

Ms. Ishrat Jahan, A.A.G with

Mr. Md. Siddik Ali, A.A.G with

Ms. Sabina Yasmin Nira, A.A.G

...… For the Government respondents

Heard on 05.05.2025, 14.05.2025, 19.05.2025, 22.05.2025 and Judgment on 26.05.2025.

Sheikh Abdul Awal, J:

This  first  appeal  at  the  instance  of  the  plaintiff-appellant  is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Khulna in Title Suit No. 16 of 2007 decreeing the suit in part.

Material facts relevant for disposal of the appeal, briefly, are that appellant as plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 16 of 2007 in the Court  of  the  learned  Joint  District  Judge,  2nd  Court,  Khulna  for recovery  of  money  amounting  to  Taka  10,12,946.41  (Ten  lakh

twelve thousand nine hundred forty six taka and forty one paisa) only.

The plaintiff’s case in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of Islam  Engineering  Works,  who  used  to  do  business  of  various manufacturing spare parts and used to sell M.S, Plate, Rod, Angle and Flat-bar in various mills and factories. A circular was published under caption “ ” in the daily “Songram” on 19.06.2004 under the signature and seal of defendant No.  1  and according to said circular the defendants wanted to sell various spare parts. The tender of schedule reads as follows:

Ka) 4 pieces Joneboyed Docsite Crane 320 Metric ton, rate of per ton Tk. 20,050 in total 64,16,000/-; and

Kha) 4 pieces spare parts of said crane amount 4.14 ton (180 item) rate Tk. 1,09,694.00 Total price 65,25,694.00 (sixty five lac twenty  five  thousand  six  hundred  ninety  four)  only  and  as  per circular the plaintiff submitted tender along with 25% earnest money through  bank  draft  on  04.07.2004  to  Divisional  Commissioner Office, Khulna.

That  plaintiff  as  the  highest  bidder  was  selected  by  the defendant and according to circular plaintiff deposited 25% earnest money i.e. Tk. 16,50,000 (sixteen lac fifty thousand) through bank draft. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 gave work order on 16.10.2004. According to work order plaintiff deposited rest money amounting to Tk. 51,69,350.23 (fifty one lac sixty nine thousand three hundred fifty taka twenty three paisa) with 3% income tax on the total value amount of Tk. 1,95,770.82 and 5% vat amount of Tk. 97,885.41 through bank draft. The defendants admitted the same by sending a letter on 14.12.2004; that thereafter a delivery committee was formed with  5  persons.  After  receiving  the  total  amount  the  delivery committee handed over 294.086 metric ton out of 320 metric ton of

goods  through  their  joint  signature  by  28  challans  between 14.01.2005-17.02.2005;  that  as  per  the  terms  of  contract  the defendant authority have not yet been handed over the remaining goods 25.94 metric ton of Ka schedule. The plaintiff has requested to defendants on several times verbally and written, but they regretted. As per terms of the tender schedule 25.96 metric ton Tk. 5,20,498, 3% income tax on the above money Tk. 15,614.94, vat 1.5% Tk. 7867.47,  Woman  charge  Tk.  22080.00  and  damage  charge  Tk. 1,28,502.00  and  also  bank  interest  Tk.  3,18,444.00  in  total 10,12,946.41 (ten lac twelve thousand nine hundred forty six taka forty  one  paisa),  being  entitled  to  receive   the  said  money  the plaintiff send a legal notice on 09.07.2007, but defendant did not take any  step  within  the  stipulated  time.  Then  plaintiff  met  with  the defendants nos. 1-2 and demanded his money to the defendants in vain and hence, the suit.

The  respondents  as  defendants  contested  the  suit  by  filing written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint  contending,  inter-alia,  that  the  defendant  institution  is  an autonomous institution. The defendant authority called for tenders for sale of cranes and spare parts. The plaintiff mentioned the price of Tk. 65,25,694.00 and as the highest bidder it was decided to issue the work order to him, apart from the plaintiff departed of Tk. 16.50 lac; that after deposited of rest amount of Tk. 48,75,695.00 income tax Tk. 1,95,770.00 and vat 97,885.41 to the fund of authority and the authority issued work order to the plaintiff; that the defendant authority embarked to disburse the goods on day time and serve a letter on 03.02.2024. But the plaintiff kept the goods in open place for  long  time.  Thereafter,  the  defendant  sent  award  notice  on 16.02.2005. Thereafter, while the plaintiff has taken the goods he did not arise any complain. After 40 day on 29.03.2005 the demand of 25.96 ton goods is not tenable in law. Plaintiff’s claim is not based on proper calculation, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties the learned Joint District Judge

framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Tk. 10,12,996.41 for the defendants?
3. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties?
4. Whether the suit is barred by law?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief,, as prayed for?

At the trial the plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and defendant  side  also  examined  1  witness  and  both  the  parties produced some documents to prove their respective cases.

The  learned  Joint  District  Judge,  2nd  Court,  Khulna  upon hearing the parties and on considering the evidence and materials on record by his judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 decreed the suit in part holding that:

Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  impugned  judgment  and decree dated 23.02.2010 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Khulna the plaintiff preferred this First Appeal.

Ms. Zobaida Parvin, the learned advocate for the appellant in the course of argument takes us through the plaint, written statement, deposition of  witnesses and  other  materials  on  record  and  then submits that the plaintiff as highest bidder got the work order and he

deposited entire amount as per terms and condition of work order but

the defendants did not supply the goods 25.96 metric ton i.e. less than actual goods which causes damage of Tk. 10,12,946.41 but the trial Court without proper assessment of the evidence and materials

on  record  abruptly  decreed  the  suit  in  part  instead  non  Tk. 10,12,946.41. The learned Advocate further submits that the plaintiff

as per law, terms and contract paid all VAT, taxes which has been duly mentioned in the plaint of the suit as well as in the evidence of PW-1 and as such, he is entitled to get decree of Tk. 10,12,946.41 with interest.

Ms.  Ishrat  Jahan,  the  learned  Assistant  Attorney  General appearing for the defendant-respondents, on the other hand, supports

the impugned judgment and decree, which was according to her just, correct and proper. She submits that NBR has not been made party in

the  suit  and  VAT/taxes  have  been  deposited  in  the  fund  of Government and it is not returnable in any way whatsoever and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit in part.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused

the materials on record, now, only the material question calls for consideration in this appeal is that whether the learned Joint District Judge was justified in decreeing the suit in part.

On  perusal  of  the  record,  it  appears  that  the  appellant  as plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 16 of 2007 impleading the defendant respondents claiming Tk. 10,12,946.41 on the allegations that as per work order the defendants did not supply total 320 metric ton goods

to the plaintiff which caused damage of Tk. 5,20,498/-. On the other hand, the defendants entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement, stating, that- “বাদীপ  মালামাল সমু লহইয়া যাওয়ার পর খাভািবক ভােব তাহার সােথ  ট ার িব ঝি  ও কাযা  েদেশর শত অনযুায়ী এই িববাদী  িত ােনর স  ক সমা  হইয়া যায়। বাদীপ  মালামাল সমু   হনওয়ার সময় এই িববাদী  িত ােনর িনকট  কানরু   পকান

অিভেযাগ উথাপন কেরন নাই। সকল মালামাল স  ূণ বিুঝয়া লওয়ার দীঘ ৪০ িদন পর হঠাৎ কিরয়া এই বাদীপ  ২৯-৩-০৫ তািরখ ২৫.৯৬ টন মাল কম সরবরাহ করা হেয়েছ মেম পে 

জানান। যাহা আেদৗ  হনেযাগ  নেহ।”. It further appears that at the trial the plaintiff examined 1 witness and defendants also examined 1 witness and  both  the  parties  exhibited  some  documents  to  prove  their

respective cases.

PW-1 stated in his deposition that- “Work order এর শত বিহভূতভা েব িববাদী মালামাল ওজন বাবদ ২২০৮০/- টাকা আমার িনকট  থেক অিতঃ  হন কের। এই টাকা িদেত আিম আইনত বাধ  না হওয়ায়  ফরত পাবার অিধকারী।” This witness in his deposition also stated that- “আিম িববাদী হইেত ৬৯৪৫৪১/- টাকা ও উ  টাকার উপর ১-১২-০৪ তািরখ হইেত ৩১-৮-০৭ তািরখ পয  Lending সদুবাবদ ৩১৮৪৪৪/- টাকা

সবে  মাট ১০,১২,৯৪৬/৪১ টাকা িববাদীর িনকট  পেত হকদার।” This witness exhibited

all his documents to prove his case namely, “Ext. 1-11 series”.

DW-1 in his deposition stated that- “িববাদী প  চার      ন এবং ৪.১৪

টন য াংশ  ািপ িব েয়র জন    ট ার  দওয়া হয়। বাদী ৬৫২৫৬৯৪/-টাকা সব  দরদাতা িহসােব বাদীর অন ুেল কাযা  েদশ  দওয়া হয়। বাদী তাহার  লাকজন িদেয় উ      ন সহ মালামাল খুিল য়অ ারি ত অব হায়  ফিলয়া রােখ। এ িবষেয় বাদী  ক সত ক কিরয়া ১৬-২-০৫ ইং তািরেখ প      রণ করা হয় পের বাদীপ  মালামাল সব িনেয় যায়। মাল বিুঝয়া  নওযার পর ৪০ িদন পের ২৫.৯৬ টন মাল কম পায় মেম জানায়। যাহা  কান ভােবই  হনেযাগ  িবেবিচত হয়না। বাদী

ট ােরর যাবতীয় মাল বিুঝয়া  নয় ।”

On scrutiny of the above quoted evidence of PW and DW together with plaint and written statement, it appears that at first the plaintiff received all the goods and after 40 days he raised objection as to weight of goods. It also appears that the plaintiff took delivery of goods and thereafter goods were lying uncared condition, resulting the  defendant  wrote  a  letter  to  the  plaintiff  on  16.02.2005  and thereafter the plaintiff took away the goods under his control.

On going through the impugned judgment it appears that the

trial Court on due consideration of the entire materials on record factually believed the plaintiff’s case and accordingly, decreed the

suit in part in the following language that- “উপর  ভ াট ও আয়কর িভ  খােত জমা  দওয়া পর মংলা ব র কত পে র উ  টাকা  ফরত  দওয়ার  কান সুেয াগথােক না। মালামাল ই গাকৃ তভােব মংলা ব র কতৃ প  কম িদয়ােছন এইরপু কান      াপট উে ািচত না হওয়ায় মালামাল কম হওয়ার কারেন বাদী  িত   হ হইযােছ, এই দাবী িবেবচনা কির. যা বাদী

লাভ বা  িত  দওয়ার  কান সেুযাগ নাই।”

This  being  purely  a  finding  of  fact  based  on  proper appreciation of the evidence and materials on record and law as well. In the facts and circumstance of the case it appears that the trial Court  justly  decreed  the  suit  in  part.  We  find  no  flaw  in  the reasonings of the trial Court below or any ground to assail the same.

 We have already noticed that the National Board of Revenue (NBR) has not been made party in the case and it is on record alleged VAT/taxes  has  been  deposited  to the  Government  treasury  in accordance  with  law  and  after  long  days  it  is  not  returnable/ refundable.

  In view of our discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs it is by now clear that the instant appeal must fail.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.

 Let a copy of this judgment along with lower Court’s record be sent down at once.

Md. Mansur Alam, J:

I agree.