Telangana High Court
AS/1739/1993 of The A.P.State Construction Corp., Ltd., rep.by its Vs Aljam Arjun Rao on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1739 OF 1993 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, rep. By its Project Enginer, Khammam ..Appellant Vs Aljam Arjuna Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1739 OF 1993 JUDGMENT:- The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.1739 OF 1993
Between:
The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, rep.By its Project Enginer, Khammam
Vs
..Appellant
Aljam Arjuna Rao
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.1739 OF 1993
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:-
The plaintiff in O.S.No.95 of 1981 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam is the appellant herein. The suit was filed forrecovery of Rs.86,482.32 paise.
The case of the plaintiff is that for the execution of N.S. Left canal, theplaintiff has engaged Palamoori Maistries for recruitment of the labour andthe defendant is one such person. The defendant again has to recruit thelabour and for that purpose took an advance of Rs.60,000/- on 16-12-1977and issued a payment voucher. He also took payments from the corporationto a tune of Rs.40,959/-. The last payment was dated 23-06-1978. However,the defendant did not turn out the work to the total amount received by himand the suit amount is due.
The defendant filed a written statement contending that he hascompleted all the entire work entrusted to him and he has also engagedlabourers and on several times he demanded the plaintiff to furnish theaccounts and so the calculations will be computed but the plaintiff has notdone so. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause ofaction and it is barred by time.
On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. But no evidence was adduced on the side of the defendant. The counselfor the defendant reported no instructions.
On consideration of the material on record, the lower court did not agreewith the contentions of the plaintiff that only partial work was done and alsofound that the suit was barred by time and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved bythe said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?
(2) Whether the suit is barred by time?
(3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learnedSubordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?
(4) To what relief?
POINTS:-
The suit was presented on 24-04-1981 and according to the cause ofaction pleaded by the plaintiff the contract came to an end on 23-06-1978,when the last payment was made on 07-03-1978 and therefore the finding ofthe learned Senior Civil Judge on the point of limitation is not correct. Even
otherwise, as can be seen from the contentions, the last payment was madeon 07-03-1978 and initial payment was made on 16-12-1977. Therefore, thecause of action arises from the date of last payment. There is no writtenagreement between the parties to prove the terms of supply of the labourersand particulars of the obligations by both parties. Therefore, this being asimple suit for money the court has to consider only the payment as the basisfor computing the period of limitation. As can be seen from Ex.A-1, the lastpayment was made on 23-06-1978. In order to overcome this deficiency inthe grounds of appeal no explanation was given. The lower court acceptedpayment of Rs.60,000/- under Ex.A-1. That is only an advance andsofar that amount is concerned, evidently the period of limitation is over. Thelower court also accepted that the payment under Ex.A-8 to a tune ofRs.49,959/- is true but however the lower court did not take into considerationEx.A-9 abstract of the work done by the defendant and did not accept theclaim of the plaintiff that only partial turn out was made by the defendant. Evidently, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. The lower courtfound that Ex.A-9 is an extract and original “M” books were not filed. Nonotice was evidently given by the plaintiff to the defendant for completion ofthe work or informing him about the claim for refund of the money. In crossexamination, PW.1 admitted that the labourers were supplied by thedefendant. The failure to do the entire work is quite different from supplying ofthe labourers. Therefore, for the valid reasons, the learned SubordinateJudge did not accept the case of the plaintiff and on the face of it the suit isbarred by limitation and I do not find any grounds to interfere with thejudgment which is impugned in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal suit isliable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered.
Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
31-12-2010TSNR