ALIBAG NAGAR PARISHAD Vs. D D HAJARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocate for the appellant. Respondent is served. Nobody is present for them. Appellant is the Alibag Nagar Parishad. Respondent, who was the contractor, was awarded certain contract by inviting tenders. He admittedly completed the work on 22-5-1990. According to him the municipal council was liable to pay him in all a sum of Rs, 8,20,000/ -. He received from municipal council Rs. 5,50,000/- and, therefore, for the balance amount with interest he filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag vide Special Civil Suit no. 39 of 1993. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the appellant - Municipal council on number of grounds; one of them was, the suit was barred by limitation. Specific issue was framed vide Issue No. 5, Whether suit is barred by a period of limitation The trial Court gave finding against the appellant regarding this issue and, awarded the claim of the respondent with interest at 15% per annum and also costs etc. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant made two submissions only. According to him, if the work was completed on 22-5-1990, then cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit on the same day and under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, period prescribed is three years for filing suit. Article 18 is as under : for the price of work done by the plaintiff Three years When the work is done. for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment. Counsel for the appellant contended that in the agreement there was no specific period prescribed for payment and, therefore, the plaintiff became entitled to receive payment on completion of work i. e. on 22-5-1990. He became entitled to get the payment from municipal council; the period of limitation of three years, as prescribed by Article 13, came to an end on 22-5-1993; and the suit should have been filed before 22-5-1993. The plaintiff filed his suit of 14-7-1993 and, therefore, the suit was, admittedly, barred by limitation.

(3.) Further counsel for the appellant contended that even if under section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965 the plaintiff was legally bound to give notice to the appellant i. e. one month statutory notice, the period of limitation could not be extended beyond one month from 22-5-1990 i. e. in any case suit of the plaintiff should have been filed on or before 22-6-1993. In the instant case the plaintiff gave notice on 8-4-1993; it was received by the corporation, according to him, on 9-4-1993 or 10-4-1993 and, if one months period is calculated, then the said period of one month came to an end on 8-5- 1993. Therefore in any case the suit should have been filed on the opening day of the summer vacation in 1993. Therefore, the suit filed on 14-7-1993 is clearly barred by limitation.