- (1.) THE plaintiff opposite party has instituted Money suit No. 499 of 1980 against the defendant petitioner, the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta in the City Civil Court at calcutta, inter-alia, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26000/ -. The plaintiff's case in short is that he had entered into a contract with the defendant to execute certain construction works for a total estimated cost of rs. 61852. 90 P. He had deposited a sum of Rs. 1340/- as security towards the said contract. The plaintiff has alleged that ha had completed the said works by early july, 1980. Against his dues he had drawn from the defendant a sum of Rs. 4371157 P. Another sum of Rs. 6400/-although sanctioned for payment was not actually paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed recovery of the balance sum of rs. 11388/- and also the above sum of rs. 6400/ -. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 6000/- as damages as the loss suffered by him for allegedly keeping his men and material idle because of the laches on the part of the defendant and its officers. He has claimed another sum of Rs. 1300/- for alleged additional works done. The plaintiff in the schedule of his plaint has given particulars of the total due of Rs. 26000/-claimed by him. The defendant, Trustees, are contesting the said suit. They had denied, inter-alia, the claim of the plaintiff to recover the aforesaid sum. One of their defences is that the suit is barred under section 156 of the Calcutta Improvement act, 1911.
(2.) THE learned Judge, 6th Bench, City civil Court, Calcutta has answered in favour of the plaintiff the Issue No. 2 framed by him by holding that the suit is not barred by section 156 of the calcutta Improvement Act. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant, Trustees, have filed this Revisional Application which has been heard with notice to the plaintiff opposite party. The Revisional Application is not hit by proviso to sub-section (1)of section 115 of the Code because if the order deciding the Issue No. 2 had been made in favour of the defendant, who has applied for revision, same would have disposed of the suit. We, however, hold that the learned Judge of the court below did not commit any jurisdictional error in deciding that the suit was not barred by section 156 of the Calcutta Improvement act, 1911.
(3.) SECTION 156 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 reads as follows :- "no suit shall be maintainable against the Board, or any Trustee, or any officer or servant of the Board, or any person acting under the direction of the Board or of the Chairman or any officer or servant of the Board, in respect of any act purporting to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder, until the expiration of one month next after written notice has been delivered or left at the Board's office or the place of abode of such officer, servant or person, stating the cause of action, the name and relief which he claims ; and the plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. ";