Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant challenging judgment and decree dated 29-7-2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 1-B/98 whereby the Court below has decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 15,261/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum if the plaintiff fails to pay the said amount within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 75,261/- alleging that the present appellant defendant has placed an order No. 239 dated 21-9-95 for supply of electric goods like Tube Rods, Bulbs, Chokes, Mercury lights etc. Plaintiff has supplied the said goods as per the order and the cost of the said goods was Rs. 1,25,261/ -. Out of this amount defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- hence an amount of Rs. 15,261/- is still outstanding. Said amount is not paid by the defendant in spite of the repeated attempts and the Officers concern has demanded 20% commission for releasing the said amount, hence he filed the present suit. ( 3. ) DEFENDANT filed his written statement admitting the fact that order was placed by the defendant for supply of the said goods but the goods supplied were of sub standard quality, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get the said amount. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Trial Court framed as many as four issues and decreed the plaintiffs suit, hence this appeal. ( 4. ) DURING the course of this appeal an application I. A. No. 6061/03 was moved by the appellant raising a ground of jurisdiction. Said application was directed to be considered at the time of hearing. ( 5. ) AFTER perusing the said application I allow this application and permit the appellant to raise the ground about the jurisdiction as raised by him in the said application. As regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Counsel for appellant submits that State Govt. has framed a law namely M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 20 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ( 6. As regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Counsel for appellant submits that State Govt. has framed a law namely M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 20 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ( 6. ) AFTER perusing the said section I find that the said section bars the Civil Courts in respect of the matters about which the Tribunal constituted under the said Adhiniyam can take cognizance of the matter. Thus, as per the said Section all the matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can not be decided by the Civil Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain them and only the Tribunal constituted under the said Adhiniyam is empowered to deal with them. For appreciating the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant it is necessary to find out whether the present suit can be decided by the Madhyastham Adhiniyam. For that purpose Section 2 (d) and 2 (i) are relevant. Section 2 (d) defines the word dispute and lays down that any claim of ascertained money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to differences arising out of the execution or non execution of the work contract or part thereof. Thus, from reading the definition of word dispute it is clear that there must be a dispute about the money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to execution or non execution of work contract. The work work contract is defined in Section 2 (i) and reads as under :- 2. (i) "works contract" means an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, work-shop, powerhouse, transformers or such other works of the State Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government may by Notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works. ( 7. ( 7. ) THUS, Works Contract as per the said definition means a contract for a work relating to construction, repair, maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, work-shop, powerhouse, transformers etc. and includes an agreement for supply of goods or material relating to execution of the said work. This means that there must be an agreement relating to construction of building etc. and the goods have been supplied in relation to execution of the said construction of work. ( 8. ) IN the present case plaintiff has approached the Court merely by saying that he has supplied the goods to the Municipal Council. He has nowhere averred that these goods were supplied in connection to a work order issued in respect of any construction work. Defendant in his written statement has also nowhere alleged that the goods were supplied in connection with any construction work and in such circumstances the mere supply of goods unconnected with any particular building or construction work will not be covered under the definition of the word work contract as defined by Section 2 (i ). Hence the present dispute is not a dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the said Adhiniyam. ( 9. ) NEXT contention raised by Counsel for the appellant is that the suit is filed in the name of President, Nagar Panchayat and Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable as the Nagar Panchayat is not joined as a party. As regards this objection, from perusal of written statement it appears that this plea was not raised by the appellant before the Trial Court. Impugned judgment also nowhere refers that such objection was raised before the Trial Court. In such circumstances present appellant can not raise this objection for the first time in the appeal. Moreover, Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that "no decree shall be reverse or substantially varied nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non joinder of the parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court". Thus, as per the said section no decree can be reversed or modified only on the ground of non joinder of the parties if it does not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. ( 10. ) COUNSEL for the appellant could not point out how the non joinder of Nagar Palika Parishad is going to affect the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the Court particularly when the written statement is filed by the defendant as the officer of the Court. They have also led evidence in the matter on behalf of Nagar Panchayat. ( 11. ) THIRD contention raised by Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not permitted to summon the necessary record which has caused prejudice to the defendant. For this purpose he has invited attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 4-7-2000. However, order dated 24-3-2000 shows that the Court has granted permission to summon the record and order dated 4-7-2000 shows that the request was made by the defendant to examine Himanshu Bhatt, C. M. O. who was under suspension. His prayer was opposed by the plaintiff but the Court allowed the said prayer in the interest of justice. Thus, it is clear that the defendant was never refused the opportunity to summon the record or examining the witnesses. In fact, his prayer was allowed by the Court by the aforesaid two proceedings. ( 12. ) NEXT submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were sub standard. Burden of proving this fact is undoubtedly on the defendant. To discharge this burden defendant has examined one Asraf Khan as D. W. 1 and Himanshu Bhatt as D. W. 2. As regards D. W. 1 Asraf Khan, he is posted with the Nagar Panchayat since 20-4-2000 when the goods were supplied in the year 1995, hence his statement are not relevant for deciding this issue. Other witness is D. W. 2 Himanshu Bhatt. In Para 4 of his statement he has stated that he has never checked the quality of the goods supplied by the plaintiff. He has admitted that he has sanctioned the amount of Rs. 50,000/- for payment to the plaintiff. He has admitted the fact that he has not made any complaint about the quality of the goods during his tenure. He has admitted that he has sanctioned the amount of Rs. 50,000/- for payment to the plaintiff. He has admitted the fact that he has not made any complaint about the quality of the goods during his tenure. No documentary evidence to prove these allegations is produced by the defendant. Statements of D. W. 2 Himanshu Bhatt are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. In such circumstances the Court below has rightly held that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not sub standard and decreed the suit. ( 13. ) AFTER perusing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record I do not find any error in the impugned judgment to call for interference. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with costs. ( 14. ) AS regards payment of interest, Trial Court has granted two months time to the defendant to make the payment failing which 12% interest shall be payable, I find that since plaintiff has preferred this appeal said period should be extended by this Court for a period of another three months from today and the interest shall be payable by the present appellant defendant only if he fails to pay the amount within three months from the date of communication of this judgment.