Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 16/09/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Evergreen Trading & Construction Co. (appellant) vs Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & others (respondents).
  • Nature of Proceeding: First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31/03/2010 that dismissed a suit for recovery of damages and compensation.
  • Background: The appellant was awarded the contract (Agreement No. B-2/44 of 1972‑73) to lay, lower, and joint RCC drainage pipelines. Work order issued on 06/03/1973 stipulated completion by 05/09/1975. Extension granted up to 23/05/1980; work completed on 30/05/1980.
  • Subsequent Developments: Final bill signed on 30/07/1988. The appellant filed the suit on 19/09/1991, seeking damages for the period 30/09/1980 to 30/07/1988.
  • Key Legal Issue: Whether the suit was barred by the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e., whether the cause of action arose on 30/07/1988 and the three‑year limitation expired on 29/07/1991.

Legal Reasoning

  • The Court held that the cause of action arose on 30/07/1988 when the final bill was rejected, making the limitation period three years from that date.
  • Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit should have been filed on or before 29/07/1991. Filing on 19/09/1991 was beyond the prescribed period, rendering the suit time‑barred.
  • The appellant’s argument that the cause of action began with the release of a security deposit on 01/10/1988 was rejected, as the appellant itself admitted receipt of the final bill amount on 30/07/1988.
  • The Court distinguished the appellant’s reliance on Civil Revision Application No. 1201 of 1971, noting factual differences and the absence of a security‑deposit deduction in the present case.
  • The judgment cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers (SLP (Civil) No. 5301 of 2022), emphasizing that a barred appeal extinguishes the right to be heard on merits.
  • Consequently, the Court found no legal obligation to consider the substantive merits of the appellant’s remaining claims.

Final Outcome

  • The First Appeal is dismissed.
  • The impugned judgment and decree dated 31/03/2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 116 of 2003 (Old Suit No. 323 of 1991) is affirmed.
  • Record and proceedings, if any, are to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.

Topics: Limitation Law, Civil Appeal