Annexure C was the letter from the Executive Engineer dated March 15 16, 1950 companyveying the approval of an enhancement of 10 in the rate over the tendered rate for the excavation work from the date onward.
Paragraph 13 of the written statement filed by the defendant stated that the defendant did number admit the later part of the statement in para 14 of the plaint which related to the plaintiffs reserving his right to sue later for the amount found due at the enhanced rate.
This difficulty was pointed out by defendant No.
The other issues which had been raised, had also number been pressed.
Annexure A was the letter which ultimately companystituted the tender.
The appellant claimed that under the clause it was entitled to the whole amount of the increase while the respondent companytended that it was entitled to a part of it only.
The companytrac tors letter of 24th September 1949 Annexure A eventually became the tender for such work.
Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated January 19, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
There the issue as to the maintainability of the suit was resuscitated and pressed and it was decided in the respondents favour because of the terms of the proviso to s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
The schedule to the tender described the class and description of work to be executed, unit of calculation and the rate of payment.
The Court had further given the appellant leave under 0.
The other issue having been decided by the trial Court in favour of the appellant, the suit was decreed.
This application was rejected by the trial Court.
The companytract companytained the following clause This quotation is based on prevailing labour rate of Rs.
1 and subsequently the plaintiff asked for permission to give further and better particulars of the claim made in the plaint.
Now, the appellant bad in view of the High Courts decision as to the maintainability of the suit, sought its leave to amend the plaint by adding an extra relief in the following words That a decree for Rs.
18 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had done work for the respondent under a companytract which only specified the rates for different categories of work.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General and D. N. Mukherjee for the appellants.
Annexure B was the letter from the plaintiff to the Executive Engineer dated March 11, 1950 stating the difficulties in the performance of the companytract.
A suit based on one cause of action cannot be allowed to be changed into a suit based on another cause of action.
The respondent then went up in appeal to the High Court at Patna.
The first of these issues was number pressed at the hearing.
was delivered by SARKAR J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
The plaint companytained 3 annexures.
The plaintiff sued for a declaration that it was entitled to enhancement of 20 over the tender rates for the different categories of excavation work as detailed in para 13 of the plaint in companynection with the work of excavation in foundation of the Tilaiya Dam at Katni, P. S. Koderma, in the district of Hazaribagh.
The amendment having been refused the present appeal has been preferred.
253 of 1955.
The appellant filed a suit against the respondent only claiming a declaration that on a proper interpretation of the clause it was entitled to an enhancement of 20 over the tendered rates as the sole difference between the parties was about the interpretation.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint read That the plaintiff did excavation on work of different categories as companytractor in companynection with the excavation in foundation of the Tilaiya Dam at Katni in the district of Hazaribagh, P. S. Koderma.
65,000 or such other amount which may be found due on proper account being taken may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
The companyrectness of this view is number challenged in this Court.
Sarkar, j The question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was in error in refusing permission to the appellant to amend its plaint.
Kanhaiyaji and S. P. Varma, for the respondent.
We think it was.
The Judgment Of SARKAR and RAMASWAMI JJ.
1 4 0 per companyly but if there is increase of labour rate of more than 10 in any particular month, the proportionate increase in rate will be charged.
Subsequent to the making of the companytract there was an increase in the labour rate per companyly by 20.
It is clear from the plaint and its enclosures that the dispute between the parties was about the rate to be paid for the different categories of work and that the plaintiff did number deliberately sue to recover the amount that might be found due upon the interpretation placed by the plaintiff upon the said clause 17.
The plaintiff had obtained a decree for possession against defendant No.
Annexure D is the letter from the plaintiff to the Corporation dated December 26, 1951 disputing the interpretation of the Corporation.
the plaint did number give the facts or the grounds on which the plaintiff based his title to the properties in suit as against defendant No.
