S SATHIAPAL Vs. PANDIYAN BRICK WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit is for the recovery of a sum or Rs. 86,000, odd with interest at 6 per cent. per annum towards the contract executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an engineering Contractor, and he entered into an agreement with the defendant, which is a partnership firm, to construct a brick kiln. The brick kiln has been completed. But some of the bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants have not been paid for. Hence the present suit.

(2.) THE defence to the suit is that the plaintiff has not constructed the brick kiln according to the specifications contained in the agreement between the parties, that there are a number of defects in the construction and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount. The defendant filed an additional written statement elaborating the above plea and giving details of the various alleged defects in the brick kiln and also valuing those defects. The additional written statement sums up the position stating that the defects in the construction resulted in a loss of over Rs. 1,60,000 to the defendant's factory.

(3.) THE case was opened and part of the evidence was recorded. At that stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant should not be allowed to plead and cross-examine the plaintiff, who was in the witness box, on the plea regarding the value of the alleged defects in the construction of the brick kiln, before paying Court-fee on the written statement. His contention is that the defendant has pleaded a set-off in the written statement and that therefore, under section 8 of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, it is bound to pay Court-fee on the same. Per contra, the contention on behalf of the defendant is that the plea in the written statement is neither a counter-claim nor a set-off but it is only a defence to the suit claim and that therefore there is no question of payment of court-fee on the written statement.