STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 1696 of 1979 filed by the State of Punjab as also Cross Objection No. 229-CI of 1979 in RFA No. 1696 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the main appeal as, both the appeal and the cross objections emanate from a common judgment and decree dated 12.4.1979 passed by Shri O.P. Dharwal, Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the appeal as also cross objections in the context of the only point of limitation that is involved in this appeal, reveal that Nand Kishore Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed suit for recovery of Rs. 67,437.58 (Rs. 37,912.58 principal and Rs. 29,525.00 as interest) for the execution of work of consolidation and surface painting of Bhupinder Sagar Mauran Road, Miles 1 to 12-1/2. His tender for the above said work was accepted by the Superintending Engineer, Roads Circle, Patiala, at the rate of Rs. 4/- above Pepsu Current Schedule of Rates. The plaintiff was intimated about the acceptance of his tender at the above said rate vide letter dated 5.1.1956 and formal agreement in this behalf was executed between the parties on 2.10.1957. Suit for recovery emanates from difference of claim made by the plaintiff which, as per the defendant, was in excess of the one due as per the terms of the agreement. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following 7 issues :-

(3.) RELEVANT facts for determining issue No. 6 reveal that before filing the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, the plaintiff had sought arbitration and reference for arbitration was made on 22.3.1958, resulting into an award dated 7.11.1962 for an amount for Rs. 5867.57. When the award was sought to be made as rule of the Court, the plaintiff filed objections as, according to him, the Arbitrator had awarded wholly inadequate amount. The objections prevailed with the concerned Court and the award was set aside on 26.2.1964. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal, which was dismissed by this Court on 18.4.1969. Consequently, if the period from the date the arbitration proceedings commenced till such time the judgment was passed by this Court on 18.4.1969 is excluded, the suit shall be within limitation but if such period is included, the suit would be beyond the period of limitation.