STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) Vs. HARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants / appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 7.7.2000 and its corresponding decree dated 15.7.2000, passed in Title Suit No. 45 of 1999, whereby the learned court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent, directing the defendants / appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,389/ - together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff/ respondent.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent for the declaration that amount of Rs. 2,85,389/ -, claimed by the plaintiff, is payable to him as approved and awarded on 20.12.1997 by the Superintending Engineer / designated Arbitrator (defendant No. 4) and for a decree in terms of the Award, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) THE defendants/appellants had contested the suit mainly on the ground that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Indian Contract Act as also under the provisions of Arbitration Act of 1940 since the Act was repealed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and further, that the suit is barred by limitation and also by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. Defendants have pleaded that the plaint itself was liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule I C.P.C. as because, it docs not contain the specific date of cause of action, nor does it contain any averment regarding the valuation of the suit. The defendants have further pleaded that the plaintiff was awarded contract job of road construction under different agreements and, after completion of the job, the plaintiff was paid of in full and final satisfaction of his entire dues which he had received without any murmur. The plaintiff having received his dues as full and final payments, without any protest, is estopped from making any further claim of money. The defendants also denied and disputed the plaintiffs claim of executing any extra work, on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to produce any paper or documents of approval of the Chief Engineer in respect of the extra work done by the plaintiff, if any, and therefore, the plaintiffs claim is not maintainable. It is also pleaded that the defendants have never admitted or acknowledged any debt in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged acknowledgment of the defendant No. 4 cannot bind the defendant No. 1, nor can it be claimed as the basis, for the plaintiff, to claim for payment of money to him.