UNION OF INDIA Vs. K JAGAN MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned judgment, we are constrained to observe, has been invited by the appellant by its negligence in filing a proper counter affidavit and bringing to the notice of the Court relevant facts. Even without going through any counter affidavit, as stated in the writ petition, which show unambiguously that the petitioner-respondent has raised a money claim on the allegation that there was some variation in the execution of work contract in respect of which, parties had agreed and when demand has been made for payment, the appellants failed to keep the promises. The petitioner- respondent, it is not in dispute, is a contractor, who has executed the work of 'conversion of track from MG to BG in between Hubli-Londa section' under an agreement dated 19-7-1995. According to the petitioner-respondent, he has carried out the work as per agreement and additional work which he was asked to do. After correspondence, variation statement has been prepared and the total amount payable to the petitioner-respondent for completing the work under the original agreement is granted at Rs.60,21,688. According to the petitioner-respondent, the appellants paid Rs.29,24,033/- minus the security amount of Rs.2,15,499/-and has not paid the remaining claim of the petitioner- respondent of Rs.30,97,655/-. According to the petitioner-respondent, there is no dispute that the work has been completed and measured, yet the petitioner-respondent has not been paid the amount remaining due under the original agreement as well as the additional work. The petition, thus, is a claim for the above mentioned amount plus interest and extra cost.

(2.) Appellants, after appearance, in the counter affidavit only questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and alleged that the subject of the contract was in respect of conversion which was situated in the State of Karanataka and that admittedly the third respondent in the writ petition (Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) G.C.IV/UBL, South Central Railway, Secunderabad), who had entered into the agreement with the petitioner- respondent did not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned single Judge has, however, upon the same recorded as follows:

(3.) The disposal of the petition, which appears to be simple after the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided, however, without doubt, is in the nature of a money decree. Dispute is referable to the contract for work and the alleged agreement under which some further work the petitioner-respondent has allegedly done. The petitioner respondent's claim has evidently arisen from the contract and/or the alleged agreement under which he executed further work. In W.A. No.512 of 1997 judgment dated 10-6-1997, a Bench of this Court has recorded as follows: