Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21st September, 2004 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 502 of 2003, by the defendants of the suit.

2. Tara Singh Jaiswal, the plaintiff instituted the aforementioned suit under Section 39/40 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing and compelling the defendants to discharge and fulfill the obligation of payment of assessed contract value to the plaintiff arising out of the contact bonds (as detailed in Annexure-1 to the plaint). It was further prayed that the defendants be also directed to pay interest towards damages on the accrued principal sum assessed by the Court at bank rate of 18% per annum from 12.8.1996 till payment with usual relief regarding costs etc.

3. The plaintiff claims himself a contractor and general order suppliers. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that he entered into various agreements with Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, U.P., P.W.D. Allahabad from time to time in execution of various types of jobs at the required sites and executed contract bonds detailed in para-2 of the plaint, on various dates and for various amounts. Further allegations are that the plaintiff faithfully and diligently performed his part of contracts as per terms of the contract bonds within stipulated period. The plaintiff became entitled to get the payment of entire value of the said contract bonds. The departmental officials though acknowledged their liability for the payment of contracted value “as per contract bonds”. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of liability of the defendants to pay the contracted value to the plaintiff but they are sitting tight over the matter. The plaintiff had to file writ petition being Writ Petition No. 33785 of 1997, for payment of the amount due to him but the defendants took a stand of non availability of budget. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1st October, 1997directing the department to take a final decision in the matter within two months. In pursuance thereof, the department acknowledged the liability and kept the payment pending till allocation of budget. The defendants acknowledged their liability by letter dated 14th March, 2002. The plaintiff after serving notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C., instituted the aforementioned suit for the reliefs mentioned above, in the judgment.

4. The defendants contested the suit on the allegations that the payments have been made for the satisfactory work done by the plaintiff. However, the payments were withheld for those part of the work which were not found satisfactory. A committee under the chairmanship of the Commissioner was constituted to examine such pending bills. It was decided to make the payment after the decision by the said committee. It was also pleaded that the suit as framed is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected, besides the other pleas that it is barred by time. The plea that the suit is barred under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also raised in para-18 of the written statement. With regard the plea regarding limitation, it was pleaded in para-19 that the bills of the plaintiff relates to the years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 for which the period of limitation for institution of suit is three years and the suit having instituted on 8th September, 2003 is barred by time.

5. The plaintiff filed replication re-asserting its claim as set out in the plaint. The parties produced evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The Court below on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff on the basis of the plaint allegation is entitled to receive payment of the contracted amount mentioned in the plaint and if so its affect