Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 736
MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.
(16.5.2012)
First Appeal No. 251 of 2008
Against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 (decree signed on 8.9.2008) passed by Sri Man Mohan Sharan Lal, Sub Judge I, Bettiah, West Champaran in Money Suit No.2 of 1997.
The State of Bihar : Appellant
Vs.
M/s Indu Construction, Hajipur : Respondent
For the Appellants : M/s J.S. Arora, Ajay Kumar.
For the Respondents: M/s Kamal Nayan Choubey, Jitendra Kumar.
Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963–Section 15 read with Limitation Act, 1963–Article 19–Suit for recovery of money arising out of contract–Limitation–Plaintiff/respondent is a partnership firm carrying contract work throughout Bihar–Admittedly, the original work was completed by 31st of December, 1991 and the extra work under Exhibit 1/A was completed by 12.2.1992–Therefore, the limitation will start from that date–The limitation will not stop running only because the plaintiff-Respondent was demanding before the authorities–There is no acknowledgement given by the appellant about the amount to be paid–Plaintiff taking the stand that the plaintiff's claim was denied for the first time on 14.2.1994 and the suit being filed is the year 1997, it is not time barred–The limitation will not depend on the denial of the appellant–If this position is accepted then if the appellant will not deny and communicate the intention nor pay the demand for more than a decade or more, the limitation will not stop running–It can only be said that the limitation will start running froms the date of acknowledgement–In the present case, when the work was completed in the year 1991, the right to recover the amount due accrued to the plaintiff–The suit having been filed in the year 1997, the claim is, therefore, time barred. (Para 52)
Promissory Estoppel–It is well settled that when one party has, by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted accordingly, them once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert–In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to produce any order or any letter whereby in clear and unequivocal promise or assurance, any of the authorities directed the plaintiff to do extra work–Plaintiff approaching the court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to any relief. (Paras 55 & 56)
AIR 2005 SC 2071; AIR 1994 SC 853; (2005)6 SCC 344; (2009)2 SCC 426–Referred to.
2. The plaintiff-respondent, M/S Indu Construction through its partner, Dinanath Singh filed the suit for realization of Rs.66,15,633.80 with pendente lite and future interest till realization at the rate of Rs.18% per annum and also for cost of the suit.
3. The plaintiff’s case in short is that the plaintiff is a partnership firm and carries contract work throughout Bihar. The Executive Engineer, Gandak Project Irrigation, Don Branch Canal Division, Ramnagar invited two tenders for earth work, turfing, raising, widening and strengthening the Bandh. One tender was from R.D.00 to R.D.191 and the second tender was from R.D.191 to R.D.307.50. The estimated cost of both the tender was Rs.74 lacs. The plaintiff filed tender on 05.09.1989 and his tender being lowest were accepted by the Department and for both tenders one agreement being No.3F-2/90-91 dated 14.06.1990 were executed between the State of Bihar through Executive Engineer and the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, prior to this agreement, the Chief Engineer, Motihari informed the plaintiff by letter dated 10.04.1990 to appear in his office on 17.04.1990 for the purpose of settling the rate. Thereafter, by letter no.1891 dated 14.05.1990, issued work order to perform the work from R.D.00 to R.D.100. This fact will again appear from the letter no.1200 dated 08.06.1990. By this letter, the Executive Engineer directed to begin the work at once and the work should be completed by 30.06.1990. The superintending Engineer also by letter no.1414 dated 25.05.1990 wanted that the work should be started and be completed by 30.06.1990. Again the Executive Engineer by letter no.1021 dated 28.05.1990 and letter no.1147 dated 06.06.1990 informed the plaintiff that the work should be started soon as the work is to be completed by 30.06.1990. Therefore, before the agreement on the order of Superintending Engineer by letter no.1414 dated 25.05.1990, the plaintiff started the work on 26.06.1990 within the allotted range from R.D.00 to R.D.100. The plaintiff accordingly informed the Department. Thereafter on 14.06.1990, agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the Department. On 15.06.1990, the plaintiff informed Executive Engineer, Don Canal Division, Ramnagar through Junior Engineer and S.D.O. that he has started the work on essential places between R.D.00 to R.D.100 and the Junior Engineer after inspection reported on the said letter that between R.D.75 to 81.20 and 84.50, 86 to 86.10 and 89.10, 91.1 to 91.50, the contractor has started the work at war level. On 13.06.1990, the plaintiff had also informed the Department that work had been started and requested for execution of the agreement. As per agreement dated 14.06.1990, the work was to be completed by 14.03.1991 but there was provision for extension also in the agreement. As per agreement, the authorities were entitled to take works beyond the agreement if the situation arises. The work could not be completed because of latches and negligence on the part of the Department, hence, the time was extended upto 31.12.1991 within which the plaintiff completed the entire work. The authorities also took extra work beyond designs. For extra work, the plaintiff was to be paid extra amount. By filing an application on 13.08.1990, the plaintiff requested the Executive Engineer for appropriate order as on essential points the works are being carried out rapidly which was being inspected by Executive Engineer on 05.08.1990 and it was informed to him that earth was not available near the site hence, it was to
