Food Corporation of India vs Sadhu Ram Balwant Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by learned Ist Appellate Court dated 21.2.1998 vide which the appeal of the present appellant was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar with costs. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Food Corporation of India for the recovery of Rs. 4,45,000/-. It was alleged in the plaint that the Corporation had invited tenders for transporting and handling work for supply of labour to the defendants for the period 27.7.1987 to 26.7.1988. Deposit of Rs. 50,000/- by way of security was made by the plaintiff with the Corporation. The work was concluded and the corporation is stated to have illegally withheld the amount of provident fund which came to Rs. 1,61,310 and another sum of Rs. 32,000/- on account of unpaid bills. The plaintiff claimed interest on this sums at the rate of Rs. 20.75% per annum. This suit was contested by the defendants Corporation. Learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. While deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,61,310/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.5.1991 to 6.1.1993 and awarded 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. This judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 15.11.1995 was assailed in appeal unsuccessfully as noticed above giving rise to the regular second appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised only one contention that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time and as such, the decree is liable to be set aside. Making his submission with some vehemence it is contended that the work assigned to the plaintiff was completed on 28.10.1988 and the suit was filed on 6.1.1993 and as such is barred by prescribed period of limitation. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur Vs. Kuldip Singh, .

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived while reliance on the case of Jullundur Improvement Trust (supra) is entirely misplaced. It was conceded before me that under the terms and conditions of contract between the parties, the submission of ''no due certificate'' was condition precedent to any claim of payment. The terms and condition of tender which was integral part of the contract between the parties, infact, did not permit final payment to be made to the contractor unless no due certificate/ no demand certificate was submitted. The contractor was given no due certificate on 1.8.1990 and 1.5.1991 respectively by the department itself. Taking into consideration the condition of contract aforestated, the period of limitation would have to be extended though the work was completed on 28.10.1988. 28.10.1988 would be a period when cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to claim his money arose, but this cause of action would re-accrue in favour of the plaintiff on the aforestated dates. This would have the effect of extending limitation. The suit admittedly has been instituted within the period of three years even from 1.8.1990. In the case of Jullundur Improvement Trust (supra) the contract did not contain any term as in the present case. As such, the judgment on facts has no application to the present case. I find no merit in this regular second appeal and the same stands dismissed in limine.