BADARWADA BHIMA SUBBARAJU Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF GUNDUGOLANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question which this enquiry posses is, whether Article 56 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case or is it Article 115 which is applicable.

(2.) The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the plaintiff who is the appellant before me instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,717-82 nP. due on the execution of contract work of the first defendant Panchayat at Gundugolanu. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that tenders were called for by the first defendant for some earth work for deepening the Vindyavasi tank in Gundugolanu village and for providing barbed wire fencing. In response to that call the plaintiff submitted his tender. His tender was finally approved and an agreement was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. He completed the work as well as certain other items which were not included in the contract. As the defendant refused to pay the amount, the suit was laid.

(3.) The principal defence raised by the first defendant was that the contractor did not carry out certain works entrusted to him. He carried out certain works which were not entrusted to him and some work was not satisfactorily carried out. The first defendant, therefore, refused to pay any amount more than what was certified by the technical officer.