Full Text
24th December, 2010 SHRI SANJAY CHADHA ...... Appellant
Through: None.
Through: Mr. Mirza Aslam, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is effective item No.4 in the regular list and no one has appeared in the matter although it is 11.15 A.M. This case is on the regular board of this Court since 6.12.2010. I have therefore perused the record and am disposing of the matter.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery for Rs.2,08,026/- 2010:DHC:6285 on the basis of a total of 30 bills of which the principal amount came to Rs.1,63,799/-. The appellant/plaintiff was awarded a contract for maintenance of the air conditioners by the respondent for the period from 20.5.1993 to 19.3.1994. The appellant claimed that various bills towards repairs were payable by the respondents and since they failed to pay the same, the suit had to be filed.
3. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed the suit. The suit has been dismissed with respect to the bills from 27.5.1993 to 21.7.1993 on the ground that the suit has been filed on 30.8.1996 and till which date these bills have become time barred. The suit has been decreed with respect to the bills dated 30.8.1993 to 5.4.1994.
4. I do not see any error in the findings of the Court below in this regard and which are contained in issue No.1. The suit was clearly barred by limitation. The counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed in this Court and which shows that the stand in the trial Court was also that the bills for the maintenance had to be raised within a period of five days from the grant of the contract. The appellant however continued to raise the bills much thereafter till 8.7.1993. The counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to the quotation proforma as per which appellant was not entitled to claim any charges for repair of the motor/compressor. But yet the bills pertained to the same and hence the same were in any case not payable. The respondents were only liable in case new compressors were ordered to be fixed and which is not the case of the appellant.
5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, the same being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
DECEMBER 24, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Ne