This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for recovery of contract dues. The court held the suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1974 but was filed in 1990, dismissing the appeal.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.431 OF 1999
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff in O.S.No.126 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Tenali, is the appellant herein.
2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,63,41700 contending that the plaintiff was given a contract for laying of the Repalle Main Drain Old Course from K.M. 16.4 to 18.2 for a sum of Rs.31,966-00 and the work has to be completed before June,1974. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 took check measurements and only paid a part of the bill amount for a sum of Rs. 20,678/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff got the estimates by the technical agent and sent a final bill to the 4th defendant and now the amount was not paid. Therefore, the plaintiff has become entitled for a sum of Rs.11,580-00 by 30.06.1974 and also for the refund of the amount of Rs.2000-00 and as the defendant has not paid the amount, notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 was issued in 1989 and the suit was filed claiming the interest at 18% per annum.
3. The 4th defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants, contending that there was an agreement executed by the plaintiff and the payment of Rs.20,00000 was admitted apart from the deposit of Rs.2000-00. The site was handed over on 12.05.1973 and the work has to be completed by 11.08.1973 and the plaintiff was paid the entire amount towards
work done by him. The plaintiff also failed to perform contract before June, 1974. The measurements taken by the plaintiff have been rejected as there was no balance of work done by him. Final bill was passed on 27.02.1977 and the refund of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff is only after settlement of the accounts on his application. The plaintiff is not entitled for any interest. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and it is barred by time.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues have been framed for trial and after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.11, the Court below has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
5. The points that arise for consideration are:i) Whether the plaintiff has completed the entire work as claimed?
ii) Whether the claim of the plaintiff is within time?
POINTS:
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff was given a contract for repair work of the drainage and part of the work is said to have been completed. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, which has been accepted by the Court below, clearly goes to show that to the extent of the work done by the plaintiff, the amounts have been paid. According to the case of the plaintiff, though the measurements taken by the department, he got the measurements taken by himself by a technical man and submitted
measurements to the defendant. The plaintiff has not examined the said person who has taken the measurements nor filed report showing the extent of the measurements. Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff that the work has been assessed independently, can not be accepted. Apart from the fact as to whether the plaintiff has completed the work or not, as found by the lower Court, the suit is hopelessly barred by time. According to the case of the plaintiff, the work has to be completed by June,1974 and the work itself was completed by June,1974 and the allegations in the plaint itself disclose that the amount is due by June,1974. Therefore, the cause of action arises after completion of the work and when the plaintiff feels that he is entitled for the amount even after the defendants have disputed the alleged estimates or refused to make final measurements or settlements, the cause of action for the plaintiff has arisen after alleged completion of the work by him merely because the plaintiff was making some representations and has approached the High Court for other relief, can not extend period of limitation. In fact, there is no promise made by the defendants for payment of the amounts and, at all times, it is the plea of the defendants that there is no liability to pay the amounts. Therefore, the cause of action for the suit has arisen after completion of the alleged work which the plaintiff asserts and that is in June, 1974 and that as the suit was filed in the year 1989 after a period of 15 years, the suit is hopelessly barred by time. Therefore, the judgment of the Court below does not call for any interference.
7. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
__________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
Date:23-04-2013 Vvr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff completed the entire work as claimed under the contract?
Whether the plaintiff's suit for recovery of remainding dues is barred by time?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Plaintiff in O.S.No.126 of 1990
Defendant Nos. 3 and 4
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
