K.C.Muhammed Iqbal vs The Deputy Tahsildar on 20 March, 2020
9. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It
is noticed that the Regular First Appeal is pending against the
dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner for realisation of
money and damages. The 3rd respondent has produced Exhibit
R3(c) judgment of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Iringalakuda in O.S.No.639/2009. The said suit was filed by
the petitioner for restraining the retender of the work at the
risk and cost of the petitioner and for decree for return of
security deposit and earnest money as also for damages. The
said suit was considered in extenso and was dismissed as early
as on 23.12.2011. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that an appeal had been preferred
against the judgment, it appears that the said judgment has
become final and no appeal is pending as against the same.
The question with regard to termination of risk and cost
therefore stands settled as against the petitioner. Exts.P3 and
W.P.(C).Nos.14019/16 &
38043/18 14
P4 notices in W.P.(C).No. 14019/2016 would disclose that there
is a specific quantification which is essentially arithmetical in
nature with regard to the amounts due from the petitioner in
terms of the contract. The petitioner, in Exhibit P6 objection,
raises a contention that he has suffered huge losses and that
RFA No.166/2014 is pending as against the dismissal of the
O.S.. Apart from stating that he does not owe any amounts to
the respondents, he has not disputed the specific
quantification of the liability by Exhibits P3 and P4 notices. It
is also to be noticed that the issue with regard to termination
had earlier been considered by this Court and the writ
petitions filed by the petitioner had been rejected as early as
in the year 2009. In the above factual situation, I am of the
opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner in W.P.
(C).No.14019/2016 cannot be accepted.