( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant challenging judgment and decree dated 29-7-2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 1-B/98 whereby the Court below has decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 15,261/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum if the plaintiff fails to pay the said amount within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment.

( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 75,261/- alleging that the present appellant defendant has placed an order No. 239 dated 21-9-95 for supply of electric goods like Tube Rods, Bulbs, Chokes, Mercury lights etc. Plaintiff has supplied the said goods as per the order and the cost of the said goods was Rs. 1,25,261/ -. Out of this amount defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- hence an amount of Rs. 15,261/- is still outstanding. Said amount is not paid by the defendant in spite of the repeated attempts and the Officers concern has demanded 20% commission for releasing the said amount, hence he filed the present suit.

( 3. ) DEFENDANT filed his written statement admitting the fact that order was placed by the defendant for supply of the said goods but the goods supplied were of sub standard quality, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get the said amount. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Trial Court framed as many as four issues and decreed the plaintiffs suit, hence this appeal.

( 4. ) DURING the course of this appeal an application I. A. No. 6061/03 was moved by the appellant raising a ground of jurisdiction. Said application was directed to be considered at the time of hearing.

( 5. ) AFTER perusing the said application I allow this application and permit the appellant to raise the ground about the jurisdiction as raised by him in the said application. As regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Counsel for appellant submits that State Govt. has framed a law namely M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 20 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

( 6. ) AFTER perusing the said section I find that the said section bars the Civil Courts in respect of the matters about which the Tribunal constituted under the said Adhiniyam can take cognizance of the matter. Thus, as per the said Section all the matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can not be decided by the Civil Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain them and only the Tribunal constituted under the said Adhiniyam is empowered to deal with them. For appreciating the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant it is necessary to find out whether the present suit can be decided by the Madhyastham Adhiniyam. For that purpose Section 2 (d) and 2 (i) are relevant. Section 2 (d) defines the word dispute and lays down that any claim of ascertained money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to differences arising out of the execution or non execution of the work contract or part thereof. Thus, from reading the definition of word dispute it is clear that there must be a dispute about the money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to execution or non execution of work contract. The work work contract is defined in Section 2 (i) and reads as under :-

2. (i) "works contract" means an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, work-shop, powerhouse, transformers or such other works of the State Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government may by Notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material