P RAMA RAO Vs. SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. The facts which are not at all in dispute are that the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed the suit for the following reliefs :

(2.) Admittedly, the plaintiff was the contractor for the construction of shopping complex being the lowest tenderer and alleging that the plaintiff failed to complete the work in time, under the impugned proceedings, the respondent-Municipality cancelled the contract, which was in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the suit for two reliefs :

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the orders of the courts below are erroneous, and the first relief prayed for is incapable of valuation as laid down under Section 24(d) of the Act, as the valuation given in the plaint is correct. On the contrary, Sri Venkatanarayana, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the total value of the contract is Rs. 7,84,958.60 Ps, out of which by the date of cancellation of the contract, Rs. 2,00,000.00worth was already performed leaving the balance of the work to be executed and consequently, court-fee has to be paid on Rs. 5,84,958.60 Ps., and the trial court namely the Principal District Munsif Court, has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the said magnitude. To substantiate his contention, Sri Venkatanarayana very strongly relied upon the decision in A.P.S.E. Board v. K.R. Reddy, AIR 1977 AP 200.