- (1.) THIS regular first appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1991 passed by the District Judge, Pall in Civil Original suit No. 32/82 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money was dismissed with cost on the ground of limitation.
(2.) THE plaintiff disclosed in the suit that in pursuance of notice inviting tenders issued by defendant-respondent No. 3 the plaintiff submitted its tender for "labour charges for laying cement and concrete". The said tender was accepted by the defendant department and, under agreement work contract was given to the plaintiff on 1975. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the abovementioned work was completed as per contract agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the authorities concerned for making payment of the final bills but it was not done and the authorities deducted an amount of Rs. 400/- from the second running bill of the plaintiff for the use of machinery of the department though, as per the plaintiff, it did not use the machinery of the department nor there was any provision to this effect. It is submitted that as per the contract agreement it was clearly mentioned that if machinery is required by the contractor it would be supplied at the demand of the contractor and the plaintiff did not put any demand for use of the machinery of the department. When the plaintiff asked for final payment the department deducted an amount of Rs. 15,572/- and the said amount was deducted from the running bill of the plaintiff appellant and from security deposits of various other contract agreements as the securities deposited by the appellant in respect of the contract agreements of various contract works were lying with the department. Vide communication dated 30-3-1978, the defendants informed the appellant that after deducting the amount of Rs. 15,572/- from the amounts of securities, the balance amount due to him is Rs. 4,179/ -. The communication dated 30-3-1978 is Ex. 33 on record.
(3.) THE plaintiff contended in the plaint that the aforesaid deduction was made by the defendant department illegally and, therefore, it filed certain representations for finalization of the work order and dispute and vide notice dated 4-7-1979 under Section 80, C. P. C. the department authorities were requested to refund the amount. It is further submitted that no payment was made, however, vide communication dated 18-8-1980, Ex. 36 on record, the matter was referred by the Superintending Engineer, P. W. D. (B and R), Jodhpur to the Chief Engineer, P. W. D. (B and R), Jaipur for decision of the matter on merit. Thereafter, no communication was received by the plaintiff nor the defendants made any payment to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs. 12,615/- was filed and it was prayed that suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff along with interest.;