STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SADIQ AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31-3-1981 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola directing the State to pay Rs. 25,667/- to the respondent original plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1-5-1972.

(2.) THE respondent firm on 22-12-1969, in pursuance of the tender, entered in a contract with the appellant State for construction of staff quarters of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth. The firm during the extended period by 31-7-1971 completed the work. The firm claimed of having carried certain extra items of work, which have not been covered by the scheduled items, during the said period. Payment in that regard was not made on 30-4-1972 when final bill was paid. Hence, on 17-7-1974 the firm served notice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code on the appellant. However, it was of no consequences. According to the firm, cause of action for recovery of price of extra items of work accrued on 30-4-1972 and also on 17-7-1974. The firm on 14-4-1975 filed a suit for Rs. 34,736/ -.

(3.) THE trial Court did not frame any specific issue on the question of limitation. However, the learned Judge discussed the same while dealing with Issue No. (9) in para (68) of the impugned judgment. It is observed that the right to sue accrued on 30-4-1972 when Department refused to make payment for the extra items of work through the final bill. The suit claim being a price of extra items of work is governed by Article 113 and not by Article 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. Hence, it is within the limitation. The learned Judge placed reliance on decisions in (Gannon Dunerley and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India) A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1433 and (State of U. P. v. Chandra Gupta and Co.) A. I. R. 1977 Allahabad 28. On merit, the trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the firm and decreed the suit claim. The main challenge put forth by the State is that the time to make payment for the work done since not fixed, the suit claim is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act.