Petitioner sought a money decree of Rs. 6 Lacs for executed maintenance work via a writ application. The court held that a pure money claim cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction and that filings of representations do not extend limitation.
Writ application dismissed with liberty to petitioner to seek remedy before appropriate court/forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16451 of 2018
======================================================
Rajendra Sharma S/o Late Bako Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Dan Nagar, Ward No.3, Post and P.S.- Khagaria, Distt- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.N. Shahi- Aag6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the present case is seeking a simple money decree directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lacs) for a work which he is said to have executed under an agreement executed in the year 2007-08 and maintenance work is said to have been done during 2011-15. The writ application has been filed after about 3 years from the date on which the cause of action arose to the petitioner, if
Patna High Court CWJC No.16451 of 2018(2) dt.05-08-2019 2/2
any.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner had been filing representations to the authorities concerned and the last representation was of the year 2017 as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application.
It is well settled by now that filing of the representations for years and years together will not extend the cause of action and period of limitation for the petitioner, moreover a pure and simple money claim cannot be allowed in a writ jurisdiction.
This Court has no reason to entertain the present writ application, it is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before appropriate court/forum in accordance with law.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
vats/ved
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a pure money claim can be entertained in a writ jurisdiction.
Whether persistent filing of representations extends the cause of action or period of limitation.
Whether the writ application filed after three years is maintainable in this jurisdiction.
Rajendra Sharma
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Rural Works Department, Patna
The Additional Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Bihar Rural Work Development
The Secretary, Government of Bihar, Rural Works Department
The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Department, Works Division, Patna
The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
