VARGHESE Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10.11.2000 we disposed of these revisions. Thereafter it was brought to our notice that the revision petitioner was dead when we heard the revisions. We have reopened the matter and allowed the applications for impleading the legal representatives after condoning the delay and after setting aside the abatement. We have thereafter heard the revisions afresh and we are disposing of these revisions by this order.

(2.) Two suits were filed by a contractor against the Kerala State Electricity Board seeking the relief of accounting on the averment that there was a breach of contract committed by the Kerala State Electricity Board which has resulted in damages to the plaintiff and he is entitled to have an accounting, the determination of the amount due to him and a decree for the same. His plea in support of the claim for accounting was that reciprocal rights and obligations were cast on the parties by the terms of the agreement and therefore he was entitled to have an accounting and a decree for the amount found due on such accounting. Subsequently, he sought an amendment of the plaint by substituting a prayer for recovery of damages in the place of the prayer for accounting. This was in view of the view expressed by this Court in a decision that in such circumstances, a contractor placed in the same situation as the plaintiff in this case, could not maintain a suit for accounting. The application was opposed by the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Trial Court took the view that the basis for a suit for accounting was entirely different from the basis for a suit for damages on breach of contract and hence such an amendment cannot be allowed. The Trial Court relied on the decision in Retnakaran v. Vengoor Panchayat ( 1988 (2) KLT 864 ). The plaintiff challenged the orders refusing amendment in the two suits before this Court in these Revisions. The plaintiff relied on the view expressed by the learned Judge in the order in C.R.P. 2482 of 1988, who had earlier decided Retnakaran v. Vengoor Panchayat (1988 (2) KLT 864) in support of his plea that an amendment as sought for can be allowed. The learned Single Judge before whom the Revisions came up, felt that there was a conflict in the views expressed by the same learned Judge in Ratnakaran's case and in C.R.P. 2482 of 1988 and referred these Revisions to a Division Bench for decision. That is how these Revisions have come up before us.

(3.) Pending the revisions, the petitioner died and the legal representatives have been impleaded.