1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 816 OF 2011 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (ARBITRATION) NO. 1470 OF 2008. M/s Malkitsingh Manjit Singh . Vrs. Western Coalfields Limited, thr. its General Manager, Post Bhalar, Tq-Wani, District Yavatmal and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Shri. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.) Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate for respondents) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15th July, 2011. After hearing respective counsel it is noticed that, according to applicant work was done lastly in the year 1998-1999 and according to non applicant, because of inability of applicant to complete the work, contract was terminated on 30th August,2000. The learned Counsel for non applicant points out that claim has been made for the first time on 14/11/2008. According to learned Counsel for applicant payment of Rs 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) was released on 04.07.2007. 2 The non applicants have invited attention to reply/affidavit to show that in relation to other contract, Special Civil Suit No 25 of 2003 was filed before Civil Court at Kelapur and because of that adjudication amount of Rs 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) was released as against that contact. This disclosure is on affidavit on 07.02.2009 and no counter reply/affidavit has been filed thereafter, till date. It is, therefore, apparent that, effort to show that on 04.07.2007 amount of Rs 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) has been released against the contract which was terminated according to the non applicant in the year 2000 is misleading. In any case when according to applicant he has not done any work under that contract since the year 1998-99, he could have made appropriate attempts within period of three years thereafter to recover alleged due. Therefore, I find application as filed before this Court, misconceived and claim therein is time barred. Hence, it is rejected. JUDGE Deshmukh.