The court emphasized that the proper jurisdiction for a suit arising from a contract is where the contract was executed and the work performed, highlighting the fallacy in dismissing the suit without addressing these substantial issues.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) [hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”] in Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 1995 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the appellant that the appellant - plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying the business of engineers and contractors and the respondent - defendant is a Limited Company incorporated under the companies Act and the appellant invited the tender for the work of lowering, laying and jointing of A.C. pipes amounting to Rs. 10,78, 559/-, which came to be accepted by the respondent and the agreement was executed at Ahmedabad on 12.07.1989 between the parties. It is further averred that the Bank Guarantee was furnished towards the security deposit and the work was required to be completed within 167 days, but the work could be completed in 832 days due to the breach of the contract as the respondent failed to supply the necessary materials for the execution of the work and it has caused considerable delay. That the respondent has also committed breach of the contract by not making the payment regularly on account of the work done by the appellant and respondent failed to make the payment for the extra work executed by the appellant. The appellant has further averred that the work was completed in all respects and the final bill was submitted on 31.01.1992 and an amount of Rs 3,74,721.75 was required to be paid by the respondent. It is further averred that on repeated request, the said amount was not paid by the respondent till today and the appellant is entitled for further interest at the rate of 24% p.a on the principal amount due of Rs. 3,60,309.11 paise from 01.10.1992 till its realization. It is further averred that the main party Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (GWSSB) has already paid the final bill to the respondent and they have also refunded the amount of Security Deposit and granted necessary extension.

2.2 The appellant has further averred that Rs.3,60,609.11 paise  towards principal amount was required to be paid to appellant on which the appellant has calculated the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. till 30.09.1992, thus an amount of Rs.3,74,721.75 paise was required to paid to the appellant and further interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 01.10.1992 on Rs.3,60,609.11 paise and the appellant had also inured other expenditures. It is the case of the appellant that the work was required to be completed within 167 days, but on the lapse on the part of the respondent, the work could be completed in 832 days and due to the prolongation by 665 days the appellant has to incur the overhead establishment charges towards men, material, power etc. And, therefore, the appellant is entitled for Rs.4,40,000/-.

2.3 The appellant has filed the aforesaid suit seeking decree of Rs.8,98,221.75 paise with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date till its realization.

2.4 The trial Court has, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, framed the following issues at Exhibit 54.

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that it is a legally regd. Partnership firm?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the work could not be completed within stipulated time due to breach of the contract by the defendant?

(3) Whether this Court have jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

(5) Whether the plaintiff proves that it’s Rs.3,60,609.11 paise is outstanding dues from the defendant?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.30,000/- as an incentive from the deft.?

(7) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.23,200/- as on  account of extra rate from the deft.?

(8) Whethe