STATE OF J&K Vs. L TOTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment will dispose of civil 1st appeal No. 33 against a preliminary decree passed by the District Judge, Udhampur, 01 25 -7 -1966 and two revision petitions Nos. 81 and 82 of 1966 arising out of the interlocutory orders passed by the Judge on 27 -4 -1966. The appeal and the revision petitions arise out of the following facts: -

(2.) THE respondent, L. Tota Ram brought a suit for rendition of accounts relating to construction work of motor road from Forebay to Power House site Chenani Hydel Project in the year 1963 against the appellant, the State, valuing the suit for purposes of court -fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100/ -. The plaintiff respondent among other things alleged that he was allotted work of motor road from Forebay to Power House Site Chenani Hydel Project from R. D. O. to R. D. 20000 by the Superintending Engineer Electrical Project Circle. An agreement was drawn up according to the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in the year 1963. The original agreement being with the department Subsequently under pressure the plain tiff -respondent was made to execute another agreement on 29 -12 -1964. The plaintiff -respondent also constructed a Zig in the first mile of the road. In paragraph 6 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that the measurements of the work done by him have been recorded in the relevant books and registers of the department and all such entries have also been signed by him time and again in token of the verification thereof." The plaintiff goes on to state that the plaintiff suffered on account of the treatment of the department with him and he had to incur a sum of Rs. 15.000/ - for extra labour The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 700/ - from the department as felling charges of some trees. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the sum due to him from the department.

(3.) WRITTEN statement was filed on behalf of the defendants -appellant. Among other objections, a preliminary objection was taken that the suit for accounts was not maintainable as the defendants were not the accounting parties. The plaintiff should have filed a suit for money. Various other pleas were taken which need not be enumerated in detail. The then learned District Judge examined the plaintiff and the Superintending and the Executive Engineers of the department under Order 10, C. P. C. A large number of issues were framed. Firstly a preliminary issue was raised which reads as under: