- (1.)BY Court This appeal by the appellant -State of Jharkhand is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2005 passed by Shri Damodar Prasad, Subordinate Judge -VI, Jamshedpur in Money Suit No.11 of 1997 whereby he has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff - respondent for a sum of Rs.5,35,962/ -and awarded interest on the said amount.
(2.)BEFORE making any comment on the judgment passed by the trial Court, I would first like to discuss the facts. The plaintiff - respondent filed the aforementioned suit being Money Suit No.11 of 1997 on 11.4.1997 for a money decree of the aforementioned amount against the defendants - appellants. The plaintiff's case is that he is a contractor of various departments and doing contract work since long. Various contracts with regard to works were executed at the Office of the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Government of Bihar, Jamshedpur in the year 1991 regarding supply of materials, urgent repairs, etc. The said agreements were executed between the parties and the plaintiff completed the works, but payments of the same were not made. The plaintiff pleaded that he requested the Executive Engineer for payment of the said amount and filed representation, but not a single farthing was paid. The plaintiff's further case is that in 1993 he filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.7877 of 1993 in Patna High Court seeking a mandamus upon the respondents for payment of the dues. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.1.1994 directing the plaintiff to file representation before the Engineer -in -Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar within a period of three weeks and the latter will consider the representation and dispose of the same within a F.A. No.50 of 2006 period of six months. In spite of the aforesaid order, the representation could not be disposed of within the stipulated time. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he filed another writ petition in the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No.3377 of 1996 seeking a similar direction and also for quashing the letter dated 15.2.1996 by which defendant No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the plaintiff to file suit within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. Hence, the suit was filed.
Defendants -appellants contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the claim of the plaintiff and stating that the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel and acquiescence. It is stated that the entire amount has been paid as against some of the agreements. The defendants further denied the fact that any amount is due to the plaintiff. Various other stands have been taken denying and disputing the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.)FROM the Lower Court Records it appears that a separate petition under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to file the suit without complying the requirement of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another application was filed under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act making a prayer that period of limitation in filing the suit may be condoned.