K.Madhusoodanan Pillai vs The Kerala State Rural ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5297 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
         TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                           RFA NO. 536 OF 2004
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 787/1993 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT
                               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

             K.MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI
             P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT S.K.BHAVAN, PALLIKAL P.O.,
             KOTTARAKKARA.

             BY ADV SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

     1       THE KERALA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
     2       THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (REMOVED)
             FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE KERALA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
             BOARD (ENGINEERING WING), P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
             RESPONDENT NO 2 IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE
             RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 11.3.16 IN IA
             631/16.
     3       THE TAHSILDAR
             TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA.
     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

             ADV.T.K.SHAJAHAN, GP


     THIS    REGULAR   FIRST    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   HEARING   ON
25.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RFA NO. 536 OF 2004

                                      2

                                JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for compensation is the appellant. The

suit has been dismissed. In appeal he also filed application to

sue as an indigent. That also has been allowed. The plaintiff,

who is the appellant herein, was a contractor, awarded the work

of construction of shopping centre-cum-office building at Karette

in Pulimath Panchayat. The contract was terminated at risk and

cost. Challenging the termination, he approached the civil court.

The court below dismissed the suit. The court also found that the

loss claimed by the plaintiff is also bogus one.

2. When the matter, came up before this Court today,

learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant placed a

communication to the Additional Chief Secretary, Local Self

Government dated 09.04.2021 by the Kerala Urban and Rural

Development Finance Corporation Limited, requesting

Government to consider any leniency in the matter of making

payment. It appears that a total loss of Rs.68,202/- has been RFA NO. 536 OF 2004

quantified as a loss to be recovered from the plaintiff/appellant.

The original defendant, Kerala State Rural Development Board is

not in existence and entire assets have been now vested with the

aforesaid Corporation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he

may be permitted to clear the principal amount alone and be

absolved from payment of interest.

4. Learned Government Pleader opposed the prayer.

It is to be noted that appellant has been declared as an

indigent by this Court as well as the trial court. Therefore, there

is no necessity to enquire about his financial position. To bring a

quietus to the dispute I allow the appellant to pay the principal

amount of Rs.68,202/- to the Kerala Urban and Rural

Development Finance Corporation Limited within one month

from today. On payment of the above, the entire recovery

proceedings shall be dropped against the appellant/plaintiff. On

failure to pay the amount within the time as above, the said RFA NO. 536 OF 2004

Corporation is free to proceed to recover the amount along with

interest in accordance with the law under the Revenue Recovery

Act. The appeal is partly allowed as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE mpm