CHALLA RAM Vs. AB GAFFAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL Gaffar, respondent herein, has filed a suit in the Court of Sub -Judge Doda against Chella Ram, petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs.7500/ - with the allegation that he had advanced the amount for supply of trained labour required for sawing work. Petitioner defendant took two pleas in his written statement, firstly that he was an agriculturist and, secondly, that the plaintiff engaged his 12 men for felling timber instead of sawing and got 600 timber logs prepared, the wages of which remained outstanding against the plaintiff and the amount of Rs.7500/ - adjusted in his account and thus denied having any amount outstanding against him.

(2.) TRIAL court firstly framed preliminary issue regarding defendant to be an agriculturist which was decided in favour of the defendant and thereafter following issue was framed: -

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Sub -Judge in his order has held that Art. 95 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case and as limitation provided under said article is six years suit is within time. He has also specifically held that neither Art.68 nor Articles 92 of the aforesaid Act could be attracted in the present case Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that trial court has erred in holding Art. 95 of the Limitation ACT applicable in the present case but in fact Art. 68 & 86 have application as according to the plaintiff money was paid for some consideration which afterwards failed or at the most suit could be termed for compensation for breach of contract. Mr. Bhat learned counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that the suit amount was advanced to the petitioner -defendant for performing a specific duty and as he failed to do so, it amounts to breach of promise to -do anything and therefore. Art. 95 of the Limitation Act is attracted.