STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHARMA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated July 19, 1967.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts necessarily for the disposal of this appeal are like this. The respondent is a partnership firm. It took contract from the defendant, the State of Rajasthan, for excavation of Suratgarh Branch Canal from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 in the year 1961 -62 under work order No. 65 dated 1 -11 -61. The respondent also executed an agreement in this respect in favour of the defendant. The respondent completed the entire work undertaken by it within the extended period granted by the defendant. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 16,658/ - remained with the defendant as security deposit for performing the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. The; said amount was withheld by the defend not without any cymae or reason. The respondent served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and filed the met, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the recovery of Rs. 20,000/ - which includes interest on the amount of Rs. 16,658/ -. Daring the pendency of the suit the defendant paid Rs. 4409.93 to the plaintiff -respondent. The defendant contested the suit for the remaining amount on the ground inter alia that a sum of Rs. 72 31 17 was due from the defendant against the hire charges of the machineries utilised by the plaintiff -respondent for completion of the work during the period from 31 -8 -61 to 14 -3 -62. Besides the said amount the defendant also claimed miscellaneous expenses to the tune of Rs. 1309.20/ - from the plaintiff The trial court on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 14658/ - was lying in deposit with the defendant as security deposit and not Rs. 16638/ - as claimed by the plaintiff. It further held that since out of this amount sum of Rs. 4409.93 was paid to the respondent during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 10248.07. The trial court accordingly passed a decree far Rs. 10248.07 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is against this decree that the defendant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) IT is next contended by the learned Government Advocate that the suit is barred by time. No issue was framed on the question of limitation. The learned trial Judge has found that the limitation would start in such a case on the repudiation of the claim by the defendant. It is admitted that the defendant repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on 4 -5 -64. The suit was filed on 31 -10 -66. The suit was thus instituted within three years. The learned Government Advocate was not able to lay his hands on any authority to show that the starting point for limitation in a suit for return of security deposit would not be from the date of reputation of the claim. There is thus no substance in the contention that the suit is barred by time. No other point has been pressed before me.