STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MUKTI & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 27th March, 2004 passed by the learned 6th Subordinate Judge, Samastipur in money Suit No. 19 of 1999 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff -respondent's money suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent Mukti & Company filed the aforesaid money suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,507/ - the principal amount with interest @ 15 per cent alleging that the plaintiff is registered contractor in the Irrigation Department of the State of Bihar. His work is always satisfactory. The defendant No. 4 by the letter No. 2437 dated 30.07.1986 allotted work of Rs. 1.5 lakh. On the same day, agreement was executed. The said agreement was with respect to the work relating to scheme of flood control. According to the terms and conditions of the appellant, the plaintiff completed the work and after measurement, the value of the work done was estimated to Rs. 1,29,456/ -. Out of that Rs. 19,949/ - was paid by the defendants. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,09,507/ - could not be paid by the defendant because of paucity of fund and subsequently, the defendants alleged that there was no technical sanction. The plaintiff further alleged that at the time of payment of Rs. 19,949/ -, no objection was raised by the Department and verification of the work done by the plaintiff was done in the measurement book. When the balance amount was not paid, the plaintiff repeatedly demanded the payment but in futile. The plaintiff then filed C.W.J.C. No. 7102 of 1996 before the High Court which was dismissed with observation that the plaintiff may approach Civil Court then the plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 CPC. Thereafter, the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE defendants appellants filed written statement contending that the plaintiff's suit is barred by law of limitation. Besides taking other legal and ornamental please, the appellants admitted that the plaintiff is registered contractor and agreement was entered into between them being No. 304 -F -2 -86 -87. After the work, the verification should have been done immediately by the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and because of non -cooperation of the plaintiff, the verification was done after two and a half month of the work. Earlier the measurement was done and bill was produced on 22.08.1986 which was correct, therefore, it was paid. The work for second bill for Rs. 1,09,507 was neither verified in time nor the measurement was correct. Therefore, no payment was made. The defendants also denied that because of paucity of funds, the payment was not made. The matter was referred to Liability Committee which also rejected the claim of the plaintiff.