Karnataka High Court
S.N. Ramachandra vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 7 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990KANT249, AIR 1990 KARNATAKA 249
JUDGMENT
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. He filed the suit against the defendants, State of Karnataka, the Chief Engineer, National Highways and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Chitradurga, to recover a sum of Rs. 26,728.61 p. with costs and future interest.
2. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he is an Engineering Graduate and a contractor. He obtained contract from respondent 3 to execute the work in improvements to Geometries between the miles 102/4 to 103/4 on the National Highway between Bangalore and Poona. He fifed a statement of the claims in respect of the, work in improvement of Geometries between the miles 102/4 to 103/4 (it should be read as kilo meters and not miles) and all the defendants failed to pay the amounts within seasonable time and therefore he has to get a sum of Rs. 23,654.61 p, in all. He issued notice under S. 80 of the C.p.C. and thereafter presented the suit.
3. Defendants while admitting some of the averments of the plaintiff denied that execution of the work undertaken by the plaintiff was due to any impediment placed by the Department on him. The defendants further averred that a sum of Rs. 159,84 p. was paid pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No. 93 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff's Court which claim was relatable to the so called security deposit. Another suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- in O.S.No. 18 Of 1979 and proper defence is said to have been filed by the Department in that suit. Due to the default of the plaintiff in the execution of work as per the terms of the contract, the payment of money was withheld. They also denied regarding the short measurement of the earth work and plaintiff's objection for the preparation of the bills at the proper time. It was also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to get Rs. 23,654.61 p. It was further denied that the measurement books were erased and tampered with by the Department Engineers etc.
4. On such pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues :--
"1) Is the plaintiff entitled for Rupees 20,654.61 p. from the defendants regarding short measurements, rates, and measurements and calculations not taken into account in respect of the contract work taken by him in miles 102/4 and 103/4 in the N. H.?
2) Is the plaintiff entitled for interest of Rs. 5,61.00?
3) Is the suit notice legal and valid?
4) What relief are the parties entitled?
Additional Issues:
1) Is the suit within time?
2) Whether the suit is hit by provisions of O. 2 R. 2 C.P.C.?"
The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim for the contract work taken by him between miles 102/4 and 1014 on the National Highway. The Court has also found that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest and consequential relief on the sum said to be paid to him. Notice issued by him is held to be valid. But on the additional issue No. 2, the Court held, the suit was not maintainable in view of the suit filed by him in O.S.No. 93 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiffs Court.
5. We may at the outset state that apart from the facts of the case, the Court declined to give relief on account of the provisions contained in O. 2 R. 2 of the C.P.C. The trial Court has copiously referred to a catena of decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India to point out that the cause of action arose from a single contract which the plaintiff had with the defendants and that any amount due under the contract was the subject matter of the two suits referred to earlier, namely O.S.No. 93 of 1977 and O.S.No. 19 of 1979 and the present claim could not be out of an independent contract and therefore of the plaintiff failed to seek the relief in the other suit, he could not separately maintain this suit.
6. Therefore, the only question which should be determined by us is, whether the view taken by the trial Court is correct. Having regard to the admitted fact that there was no independent contract to do any extra work in respect of which the present suit claim relates to, if there is no independent contract for the extra work done by the plaintiff, it goes without saying that any extra work done was pursuant to the contract the payment under which is the subject matter of suit in O.S.No. 19 of 1979. In that view of the matter, the trial Court correctly came to the conclusion that the cause of action relates to the same contract and he could not maintain two separate suits in respect of the same cause of action.
7. There is no merit in this appeal. Therefore it is dismissed.
8. Appeal dismissed.