FA/416/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 416 of 2008 ========================================================= MEHSANA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Appellant(s) Versus VAISHALI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HS MUNSHAW for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
2. By
way of this appeal, the present appellant-original plaintiff has
challenged the order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the Fifth Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Special Civil Suit No. 111 of 1997
whereby the said suit was dismissed.
3. The
present appellant had filed a suit against the present
respondent-contractor for non completion of the work which was
supposed to be completed within a period of nine months. As the work
could not be completed within the specified time period, the original
plaintiff sent notices to the respondent and thereafter filed a suit
for damages. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the
aforesaid order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
has preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned
advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the estimated
cost of the alloted work was Rs. 241835.10 and the offer of the
respondent no.1 firm was of Rs. 308339.25 and at no point of time the
respondent no.1 was punctual in executing the work of slab drain as
per the schedule. He has further submitted that the lower court has
erred in not appreciating that in view of the factual background the
appellant was compelled to complete the work through another agency
at the risk and cost of the respondent no.1 firm as per the
provisions of the contract and in the process the appellant had
incurred additional cost of Rs. 5,44,620/- which is liable to be
recovered from the respondent no.1 firm.
5. Perused
the papers on record. The lower court has gone into the evidence in
detail and has come to the conclusion that the suit was time barred.
It actually appears that there was a breach of contract at the end of
the appellant. The suit was filed after a period of 14 years from
10.05.1983 and the same has led to the violation of the relevant
provisions of the Limitation Act. I am in complete agreement with
the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the lower court.
No other evidence has been placed on record to take a view other than
the one taken by the lower court. This appeal is therefore required
to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//