SUSHIL KUMAR RAUT Vs. VIRENDER BHATNAGAR SANSATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, IA.No.729/2003, under Section 151 for condoning the delay in refiling the suit after removal of objections and IA.No.1925/2003, under Section 149 CPC for extension of time in payment of the deficit court fee are being decided.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the above applications may be briefly noted:-

(3.) Having noticed the admitted facts as also the pleas urged, let me notice the legal position, as it emerges from the authorities cited by both the counsel. Before adverting to the legal position on facts, it may be noticed that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of a construction firm and defendant is a society. Disputes between the parties relate to a contract executed for construction of staff housing/teaching block. It is the plaintiff's case that the architect, under whose supervision the work was carried, was removed and the defendant appointed a new architect. A sum of Rs.25 lacs is stated to have been paid to the plaintiff. An application bearing No.1096/2000 in the suit instituted by the defendant for recording of compromise was moved. This application, plaintiff claims, was opposed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It was the defendant's case that the sum of Rs.25 lacs was paid in full satisfaction and there was accord and satisfaction, while the plaintiff claims that there was no compromise reached and it was only a part payment on 7.12.1999.