NATHU RAM Vs. NAGAR PALIKA, ORAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 1139-95 P. from the defendant respondent which is the Nagar Palika of the town of Oral.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that he had submitted a tender for repairing the stone flagging at several places in many mohallas of Orai, on 30th April. 1964 and his tender at the rate of Rs. 115/- per 100 square feet being the lowest, was accepted and approved by the District Magistrate, Jalaun on 22nd May, 1964. He commenced work and a running payment was not made to him in spite of his having completed further work which was measured by the Overseer, in the respondent Nagar Palikas measurement-book No. 20 (64-65) at pages 9 and 10 on 6th May, 1965, and consequently he had to abandon further work under the said contract. The total amount due for the work done by the plaintiff was Rs. 1689.91 p. and after deducting the running payment of Rs. 549.96 P. out of it, the sum. of Rs. 1139-95 P. was due to him which was not paid in spite of demands and he was finally informed by the defendant Nagar Palika by notice dated 18th July, 1966 that he would not be paid any. further amount. The plaintiff then served a notice dated 16th January, 1967 under Sec. 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, which was duly served on the defendant Nagar Palika on 17th Jan., 1967 and filed a suit on 18th March, 1967, on the last date of the expiry of 8 months from the refusal of the Nagar Palika to pay the amount, due to him, which was taken to be the date of the accrual of the cause of action for the suit, by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant Nagar Palika pleaded that the work under the contract had to be completed in accordance with the estimate annexed to it. The estimate showed detailed quantities of the work to be done in different Mohallas, the total quantity of the work of stone flagging to be done according to that estimate was 8016 square feet. According to the defendant Nagar Palika, the quality of the work done by the plaintiff in Mohalla Matapura was sub-standard which he failed to rectify in.spite of notice, and instead of the estimated quantity of 81 square feet of stone flagging to be done in Mohalla Matapura and 330 square feet of stone flagging to be done in Mohalla Vijai Nagar, the plaintiff contended that he had completed 246 square feet of work in Mohalla Matapura, 916 square feet in Gali Krishna Lal Maheshwari and 681 square feet in Mohalla Vijai Nagar, which was much in excess of the estimated quantity of 81 square feet, 331 square feet and 75 square feet respectively and his claim was altogether fictitious. The defendant Nagar Palika pleaded that is was accordingly not liable to pay for any such work done in excess of the contract. The plea of limitation was also raised, as a bar to the suit. It was also suggested that the plaintiff was liable for breach of the contract in having abandoned the work incomplete.