M. VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Defendant has preferred the present Original Side Appeal [as an aggrieved person] as against the Judgment dated 28.02.2017 in C.S.No.715 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

3. Since this Court is disposing of the present Original Side Appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant, at the admission stage itself, it is not ordering notice to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

4. Appellant/Defendant's Contentions:

4.1. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in C.S.No.715 of 2012 dated 28.02.2017 in holding that 'the Respondent/Plaintiff Company are entitled to the amount towards the final Bill dated 27.03.2009 i.e. Rs.18,49,220/- with interest as claimed by them etc.,' is against law, facts and probabilities of the case.

4.2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contends that by placing reliance on Ex.P4 dated 27.03.2009 and holding that it was a final Bill, the Learned Single Judge had committed an error in regard to the arising of cause of action for the Respondent/Plaintiff to file the suit in question.

4.3. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant proceeds to point out that Ex.P4 is only a xerox copy of Final Bill dated 27.03.2009 and original of Ex.P4 was not filed before the Learned Single Judge and particularly in view of the admission of P.W.1 to the effect that he was in possession of the original Ex.P4 and that the nothings in pencil found in Ex.P4 are not found in the original, the Learned Single Judge is not correct in admitting the Ex.P4 as a document and this has resulted in a serious miscarriage of Justice to the Appellant/Defendant.

4.4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that Ex.P4 dated 27.03.2009 cannot be said to be a Final Bill raised by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant and hence, the date of Ex.P4 cannot be concluded or taken into account for the purpose of limitation.

4.5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that as per the Work Order-Ex.P3, there is no mention that the Appellant/Defendant is bound by the certificate by the Architect with regard to the Final Bill. Also that, the Appellant/Defendant had not acknowledged the liability in any manner and that because of the defective construction made by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Appellant/Defendant had suffered loss and they had to engage another contractor to execute the repair work.

4.6. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant/Defendant had not acknowledged Ex.P4 and as a matter of fact, D.W.1 had deposed, in cross examination, that he was not aware that the Architect had finalised Rs.18,49,220/- in Ex.P4 and that the Respondent/Plaintiff had not established as to who had made the writings in pencil in Ex.P4.

4.7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant takes a stand that the Appellant/Defendant had not admitted the liability and in fact, the Architects certification was not made on 27.03.2009 (the date of Ex.P4) and even as per Ex.P4, the Appellant/Defendant does not admit as Final Bill payable, which is mentioned as Rs.9,02,674.17.

4.8. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant is that the Respondent/Plaintiff had not arrayed the Architect as one of the parties to the Civil Suit in C.S.No.715 of 2012 and in the absence of the Architect, being made as a party in the Suit or non-examination of the Architect as a witness, to know the geniunity of Ex.P4, the Learned Single Judge should not have relied upon Ex.P4 dated 27.03.2009 at the time of decreeing the Suit and per contra, the Suit should have been dismissed.

4.9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant points out that at the bottom of Ex.P4 dated 27.03.2009 (in the Enclosures) it was mentioned that the Final Bill was dated 23.02.2008 on which date