AYODHYA PRASAD Vs. CHHEDILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/appellant by this first appeal has challenged the order dated 18-9-1995, in Civil Suit No. 13-B/93, by District Judge, Raigarh, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of amount of damages and the price of boring machine was dismissed, as barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC.

(2.) Undisputably, the plaintiff/appellant had executed the work of boring a tube-well by his boring machine in the 'Poha' mill of the defendant/respondent. According to the plaintiff/appellant after boring for about 120 ft., the work had to be abandoned for want of adequate water supply. The defendant/respondent had agreed to pay boring charges @ Rs. 20.00 per foot. The plaintiff/appellant demanded from the defendant/respondent the amount for the work executed by him as per the above agreement between the parties. However, the defendant/respondent did not pay the said charges and also did not permit the plaintiff/appellant to take away his boring machine. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant served a notice dated 22-1-1986 on the respondent/defendant. Thereafter, he filed a suit registered as Civil Suit No. 17-A/86 (hereinafter referred to as earlier suit for convenience), claiming damages amounting to Rs. 50.00 for wrongful retention of the boring machine for a day i.e. for 23-1-1986. The said suit was decreed and damages was granted to him. The appeal against the said decree was also unsuccessful.

(3.) Subsequently another suit registered as Civil Suit No. 13-B/93, was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the Court of District Judge claiming the amount of damages for three years, prior to the filing of the suit amounting to Rs. 54,750/- for wrongful retention of boring machine, as also Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the boring machine, wrongfully retained by the defendant/respondent.