AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for money was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are in appeal.
A contract was entered into between the 2nd plaintiff and the defendant for construction and maintenance of Government buildings of the Central Circle of the Public Works Department. The agreement was entered into on 24.04.1998. The period fixed for completion was 18 months. The site was handed over on 24.09.1998. The plaintiffs allege that, after completing 20% of the work the defendant abandoned the same in April 1999. Subsequently, the contract was terminated on 04.02.2002 at the risk and cost of the defendant. The suit is filed for realisation of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs consequent on the re-tendering that was necessitated.
The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had committed the breach of contract by not honouring the bills and not supplying materials, thus compelling the defendant to abandon the work. The claim for damages was denied. It was also contended that the suit is time barred.
The trial court held the suit to be barred by limitation. It was also found that the plaintiffs had committed breach of the contract. Accordingly the suit was dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
The points that arise for determination in this appeal are :-
Is the suit barred by limitation ?
Was it the plaintiff or the defendant who had committed breach of contract?
Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?
The contract was terminated on 04.02.2002 as per Ext.A8 termination letter. The suit is filed only on 23.10.2010. Seeking to realise the alleged damages the plaintiffs had initiated revenue recovery proceedings. The same was challenged by the defendant before this Court in OP 12297/2003. As per Ext.A11 judgment dated 14.06.2007 this Court interfered with the revenue recovery proceedings and relegated the plaintiffs to the civil court. This Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled for exclusion of the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The judgment was passed on 14.06.2007 and the suit was filed only on 23.10.2010, three years after the judgment. Therefore, the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. We concur with the trial court in having held so.
The defendant alleges that the plaintiffs committed breach of contract by failing to disburse the part bill amounts. PW1 has admitted that there was delay in disbursing the initial payment. Ext.A8 termination letter indicates that there was pending payment. Ext.B1 is the letter dated 03.08.2000 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer. Therein it is stated that, “Because of the delay in payment, the contractor could not continue the work...”. Ext.B2 is the letter dated 11.08.2000 issued by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. Therein it is stated that the work was initially progressing but that the contractor discontinued the work consequent on the delay in paying the bills.
The defendant further relied on Exts.B11 to B13 the entries in the 'M' book and substantiated that the entries revealed that the department failed to supply departmental materials.
On the above discussions, it is evident that the plaintiffs were responsible for the breach of contract. The trial court is right in having held so. No material to upset the finding of the trial court could be brought to our notice.
There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.