STATE OF U P Vs. SINGHAL AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by the State of U.P. arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent M/s. Singhal and Company for recovery of Rs. 4757.45P.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent entered into a contract with the State of U. P. through the Executive Engineer P.W.D. Temporary Division, Allahabad for supply and fixing steel windows and north light windows as provided under the contract. There was certain delay in executing the contract. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the delay was caused not due to the fault of the plaintiff-respondent but because of the appellant State of U. P. The State of U. P. did not pay the full price of the contract, also deducted the security from the plaintiff-respondent and levied penalty on the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent, therefore, filed a suit for recovery of the amount of the price, deduction of security, refund of penalty and interest thereon. The appellants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent did not complete the work within time and as such the action of the appellants was justified and the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the amount claimed in the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by time and the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) AGAINST the judgment dated 16th October, 1'971 an appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court also on merits held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the amount claimed by it. It also held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and as such decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit. The appeal was accordingly allowed by judgment dated 15th April, 1972 and the suit decreed. The judgment dated 15th April, 1972 has been impugned in the present appeal.