HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBLASPUR Coram:- Hon'bleShri DhirendraMlshr«.&.< Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chapdrakafe ^ Civil Revision Noi.19^;0'10 •^i .'1- 'ft:. Applicants '-^ Non-aDDllcant 1. Stateof Chhattisgfflft.through ttie Secretary, DeptlE, (ft^^Stqr Resources, DKS ..Bhawan, Raipur(CG) ^ ^ ^^^ ^ 2. Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Reservoir Project, M^PS Phase-11, Works ? DivlBion, RaipurlCG) „: , Versus Sriniva^i Constructlon Ud.> Engineers |»id.Cor^et^ i through Prashant— Kumar Adhak, Pro)ecT; Milaligs^ Corporate Offteew B6-C8' 913/914,Prt^r^shffi!jO'|re|S;, 5th Ftoor," KhairatASads Hyderabad-4 (A.P.^ ,:,,: y Civilrevlsion undw Section 19 of M.PJC.B. MadhViKNiam Adhikaran Adhinivam. 1983., ' 1 Z 08/03/2010 Shri Kishore Bhadurl, AcklitioreilAdvocate Generd fer the State/applicants. The applteants/State have prefenred this ch/il rewston under Section-19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyaathami Adhilfflran Adhlniyam, 1983 (for short the 'Acf) agalnst the erder of Chhattlsgarh Arbitratlon Appeal, Raipur paased in reference prfition No.11/08, whereby the petition oif the Stete on th& que^ion of limitation has not been allowed and aff>li®EBitStBte has been directed to fUe Its reply to the petition. * 2- (2) Shri Kishore BhaAiri, learned. Additional Advowte General submlts that the respondent/contractor prefenred ai appllcation under Sectton 7 of the Act, whereln a sumof Rs.4,029.26 lakhs was claimed under VEU-ious beads in. connection wlth the contract agreemenf entered Into between the parties in the year 2002-03. Firstly, the r^pondent submitted the aforesaid claim before ttie Chief Gngineer andsthe same was rejected on 16.07.2008 vide Annex^ire A-1. Aftw rejection of the claim, the respondent movad the abov® application before the Tribunal. The applicsnts objected to ttie maintainability oftheaboveclaim on theground ofliinitatloriiVide Annexure A-2. However, the Tribunal has directed< the applicanls to file reply to the application pFefared by lh& respondent with an observation that the ebjectipn rai^el bythe petltioner relating to issue of limltation is a mixed queartioR of law and facts. He further submits that the reqsondent accepted the flnal payment against the work underthe contractwaybackon 05.06.2006 and issued Gertificate of satisfadion to that effect. He also submittel his claim after more than 2 years of finalization of the contract and the same was rejest®^t>y the Chief Engineer on 16.07.2008. Jhe ^aim of the respondait before the Tribunal was hopelessly barred by law <rf Ihnitoaqn aa the claim was made after more than2 years of finalizaition of frie contract. The Tribunal could also not entertain the appli(»tjon as the respondent has accepted the payment agzrtnst the Ttnal bill wlthout any demur and to his fult and fingd satisfaetiqn. (3) We have heard learned Addl. Advocate General for the State/applicants and pemsed the cuider dated 16.07.20(% passed by the Chief Engineer rejecting the claim of the' respondent. In our considered opinion, the obs^vation of learned Tribunal in the impugned orderthat the objection raised by the applicant/State is a mbced questton of fad: and law and -t^ii^^^^ate.,te^ ?> '^ the same woutd be decided alor^ wfth ttie mertt&ofthecase, Is just and proper. There isno ground under Se^ion 19 oftieAcd to assail the impugned order by way of reviston. (4) The revision is accordingly dtsmissed aSt theadmission stageitself. , Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandraka!- Judge