1 kambli/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2005 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.282 OF 1998 ... B.G.Rege & Company ...Appellant v/s. Shri Tejshi Shamji Gala and Anr. ...Respondents ... Ms.Priya Ranade i/b A.P.Rege for for Appellants. None for the Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & SMT.R.P.SondurBaldota,JJ DATED: 21st June, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal the Appellant/ original Plaintiff challenges the order dated 5th September, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Summary Suit No.282 of 1998. By that order the learned single Judge has dismissed the suit. The Appellant had filed the suit for recovery of 2 an amount of Rs.8,64,078.70 together with interest for the work allegedly done by the Plaintiff for the Defendant and other tenants of the residential building. The Building was taken over by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority in or about 1985-86 for carrying out repairs and reconstruction. The Defendants and four other tenants had formed unregistered association. There was no objection given by the MHADA for carrying out repairs at their own costs in the year 1987-88. Initially one Mr.Pednekar was appointed as Architect. Subsequently, one Mr.V.G.Mhatre was appointed as Architect. An agreement dated 2nd October, 1987 was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 for carrying out the work. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff carried out the work. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the 3 amount. The suit was resisted by the Defendants by filing written statement. Therefore, following issues were framed. ISSUES 1.Whether the Plaintiff proves that they are entitled to a decree for Rs. 8,64,078.70 for the repair works carried out by them with interest at 15% per annum? 2.Whether the Defendants prove that the suit claim is barred by limitation? 3.Whether the Defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable? 4.Whether the Defendants prove that they have paid full amount to the Plaintiff in full and final settlement? 5.Whether the tenants in the building are necessary parties to the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed for their non- 4 joinder? 6.What relief? 2. The learned single Judge, who decided the suit, held that the Defendants alone were not liable to pay the entire amount of alleged repair work to the Plaintiff. The learned single Judge also held that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. We find that according to averments in the plaint the cause of action for filing the suit arose when the Plaintiff served bills on the Defendants on 5th April, 1996. However, perusal of the agreement on which the suit is based shows that the liability to pay the amount arose on the next day after the Architect issued the certificate. Admittedly, 5 the Architect issued the certificate on 26-9-1993. Therefore, suit filed in 1998 clearly was barred by limitation. Thus, finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the suit is barred by the law of limitation cannot be disturbed. We also find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned single Judge that if the terms of the agreement are properly construed, the liability to pay cannot be fastened on the 2nd Defendant alone. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order impugned in the appeal. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.P.SondurBaldota J.) 6