THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1739 OF 1993 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, rep. By its Project Enginer, Khammam ..Appellant Vs Aljam Arjuna Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1739 OF 1993 JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.95 of 1981 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.86,482.32 paise. The case of the plaintiff is that for the execution of N.S. Left canal, the plaintiff has engaged Palamoori Maistries for recruitment of the labour and the defendant is one such person. The defendant again has to recruit the labour and for that purpose took an advance of Rs.60,000/- on 16-12-1977 and issued a payment voucher. He also took payments from the corporation to a tune of Rs.40,959/-. The last payment was dated 23-06-1978. However, the defendant did not turn out the work to the total amount received by him and the suit amount is due. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he has completed all the entire work entrusted to him and he has also engaged labourers and on several times he demanded the plaintiff to furnish the accounts and so the calculations will be computed but the plaintiff has not done so. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause of action and it is barred by time. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 9. But no evidence was adduced on the side of the defendant. The counsel for the defendant reported no instructions. On consideration of the material on record, the lower court did not agree with the contentions of the plaintiff that only partial work was done and also found that the suit was barred by time and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? (2) Whether the suit is barred by time? (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? (4) To what relief? POINTS:- The suit was presented on 24-04-1981 and according to the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff the contract came to an end on 23-06-1978, when the last payment was made on 07-03-1978 and therefore the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge on the point of limitation is not correct. Even otherwise, as can be seen from the contentions, the last payment was made on 07-03-1978 and initial payment was made on 16-12-1977. Therefore, the cause of action arises from the date of last payment. There is no written agreement between the parties to prove the terms of supply of the labourers and particulars of the obligations by both parties. Therefore, this being a simple suit for money the court has to consider only the payment as the basis for computing the period of limitation. As can be seen from Ex.A-1, the last payment was made on 23-06-1978. In order to overcome this deficiency in the grounds of appeal no explanation was given. The lower court accepted payment of Rs.60,000/- under Ex.A-1. That is only an advance and sofar that amount is concerned, evidently the period of limitation is over. The lower court also accepted that the payment under Ex.A-8 to a tune of Rs.49,959/- is true but however the lower court did not take into consideration Ex.A-9 abstract of the work done by the defendant and did not accept the claim of the plaintiff that only partial turn out was made by the defendant. Evidently, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. The lower court found that Ex.A-9 is an extract and original “M” books were not filed. No notice was evidently given by the plaintiff to the defendant for completion of the work or informing him about the claim for refund of the money. In cross examination, PW.1 admitted that the labourers were supplied by the defendant. The failure to do the entire work is quite different from supplying of the labourers. Therefore, for the valid reasons, the learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the case of the plaintiff and on the face of it the suit is barred by limitation and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment which is impugned in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR