STATE OF KERALA Vs. M A MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-State and its functionary questioning legality of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 859 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Trichur. The suit was filed for recovery of money in connection with the award of work undertaken by the respondent-plaintiff who is the contractor.

(2.) The High Court was of the view that the court below had fixed award of damage of Rs. 9,53,669/- and found that the plaintiff was entitled to damage under other head and, therefore, restricted the decretal amount to Rs.10,00,000/-. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the letters on which reliance had been placed show that the contractor was not doing the work within stipulated period and had been asked for to apply for extension. The basic stand of the plaintiff-respondent was that the extensions had been sought for and supplemental agreements were executed not on the free will and free consent of the plaintiff but it was due to circumstances which prevailed at that time which necessitated the plaintiff to agree to the commands of the defendants. To put it differently as noted above the plaintiff had contended that it was due to coercion that these supplemental agreements were executed. The trial court concluded that on the threat of forfeiture, re-allocation and re-arrangement at the cost of the plaintiff the execution of supplemental agreement was done. It is pointed out that there was no clause for any escalation. It was wrongly assumed by the trial court that the supplemental agreements and declarations made by the plaintiff were not binding on him as it was not obtained by free consent and free will and in the normal course of events.